Compared to Nikon’s only other Z series macro lens, the Nikkor Z MC 105mm f/2.8 VR S which I reviewed earlier this year, this 50mm Macro is a real bargain. But it’s also a compromise. Thus, we are left to ponder. To buy, or not to buy? That is the question.

Unlike Hamlet, I won’t soliloquize. Let’s get to the review.

Specification of the Nikon Nikkor Z MC 50mm F/2.8

• Mount : Nikon Z Mount

• Focal Length : 50mm

• Maximum Aperture : f/ 2.8

• Minimum Aperture : f/ 22

• Format : Full Frame (FX)

• Maximum Angle of View (DX crop-sensor cameras) : 31°30′

• Maximum Angle of View (FX full frame cameras) : 47°

• Maximum Reproduction Ratio : 1:1, Life Size

• Lens Formula : 10 Elements in 7 Groups; 1 ED Element, 1 Aspherical Element

• Diaphragm Blades : 9

• Fluorine Coat : Yes

• Focus Mode : Auto/Manual, user-selectable
  

• Minimum Focus Distance : 0.53ft (0.16m) from focal plane

• Filter Size : Screw-in 46mm

• Approx. Dimensions (Diameter x Length) : 3 in. (74.5 mm)  x  2.6 in. (66 mm)

• Approx. Weight : 9.2 oz. (260 g)

Build Quality, Ergonomics, Functions

Mounted to my Nikon Z5, the Nikon Nikkor Z MC 50mm F/2.8 feels balanced and easy to handle. There’s a super-sized focusing ring for manual focus, and two switches on the side of the barrel. The topmost switch toggles between Auto and Manual focus modes, and the bottom switch is a focus range limiter which allows the lens to focus either throughout its entire focus range or in close-focusing distances only (a useful mode when we’re shooting exclusively macro for any length of time).

The large focusing ring activates the focus-by-wire electronic manual focus when the focus switch is toggled to Manual mode. This is natural, but there’s also an additional bonus. When we have the lens set to Auto focus we can set the manual focus ring to control other camera parameters, such as exposure compensation or ISO, which is a nice touch.

The Z MC 50mm F/2.8 is not a part of Nikon’s high-end S series lens lineup for their Z series cameras. This means that it lacks some of the niceties which make the S series lenses so, well, nice. It’s made mostly out of plastic, not metal, and it doesn’t contain the special ARNEO and Nano coatings found on some of the lens elements of the S series lenses. Nor does it pack vibration reduction and internal focusing, nor such luxuries as OLED info displays and special function buttons.

But these omissions also bring benefit. A more restrained optical assembly, external focusing, and compromises in the areas of pure performance mean that the 50mm Nikkor is smaller and lighter than most of Nikon’s lens lineup. This lightness lends itself well to a lens which is supposed to fill the role of both a specialized macro lens and a standard everyday lens. The Z MC 50mm ostensibly replaces two lenses in our camera kit with one. If we substitute the Nikon Nikkor Z 50mm F/1.8 S and the Nikon Nikkor Z MC 105mm F/2.8 VR S for the Z MC 50mm, we’re saving 27.8 ounces (1.73 lbs) in weight and approximately $880.

Nikon NIKKOR Z MC 50mm f/2.8 Macro Lens

Buy Nikon NIKKOR Z MC 50mm f/2.8 Macro Lens featuring Z-Mount Lens/FX Format, Aperture Range: f/2.8 to f/22, One ED Element, One Aspherical Element, 1:1 Magnification, 6.3″ Minimum Focus, STM Autofocus System, Focus Range Limiter, Magnification and Focus Distance Indexes, Weather-Sealed Construction…

Image Quality and Performance

Savings in weight and money don’t mean much if we’re left with a poor lens that makes sub-par images. While the Nikon Nikkor Z MC 50mm F/2.8 doesn’t make images as nice as those made by some dedicated 50mm lenses nor Nikon’s macro 105mm, it more than holds its own.

Shot wide open at normal focusing distance, the lens is extremely sharp in the center of the frame. While there’s softness at the edges, this actually creates a pleasing effect in portraiture and everyday shooting. There’s also significant vignetting at maximum aperture, but both of these issues resolve significantly with the lens stopped down to f/4, and by f/5.6 the lens is uniformly sharp and bright at the edges. Peak sharpness is achieved at f/8, after which diffraction begins to creep.

Black peppercorns at 1:1.

Chromatic aberration is non-existent, distortion is so low as to be a non-issue (and it’s correctable in Lightroom), flares and ghosts don’t really occur, and images, generally speaking, are gorgeous.

When focusing close at 1:1 reproduction ratios, to make true macro photos, the lens’ aperture actually decreases to a maximum of f/5.6. This phenomenon has been typical of macro lenses through the decades. As we focus closer and closer, the aperture must close smaller and smaller. The only appreciable impact that this has on our image-making is that we must ensure we have ample light when shooting macro. This is far easier today than it was a decade ago, or certainly in the days of film, since digital sensors have become so sensitive in recent years. But it can still be an issue when we’re shooting low-light macro or photographing a moving subject.

When making true 1:1 macro photos, our working distance is about two inches. This means that the point of focus will be just two inches in front of the front element of the camera lens. Thus, it may be tricky to take photos of skittish flying insects or hairy spiders, but this is a trade we must make to have a standard 50mm walk-around lens contained within our dedicated macro. It should also be noted that we can achieve further working distances by decreasing the reproduction ratio (the ratios and their working distances are helpfully engraved on the extending macro lens barrel).

Where the lens most obviously stumbles is in auto-focusing at close working distances. While the lens snaps to focus very quickly and almost silently when shooting at normal, standard working distances (ie. taking photos of people, landscapes, snapshots, etc.), it does have a tendency to slide and hunt when shooting extreme close ups.

But we do have options. First, we can switch the lens to close focus mode via the toggle on the lens barrel. Flicking this switch from FULL to close focus mode will tell the lens to only attempt to achieve focus on close-up subjects (from 0.3 to 0.16m distant). Second, we can switch the lens to manual focus mode, set our distance manually via the focus ring, and hover the camera closer to or further from our subject in order to achieve focus. These two built-in solutions are instantly accessible via physical switches, which beats fumbling through menus, and the use of either or both mitigated any poor AF performance that I encountered throughout my time with the lens.

Nikon Nikkor Z MC 105mm F/2.8 VR S Macro Lens Review

Nikon offers two dedicated macro lenses in their Z Series lens range. Here we review the longer of the two, the Nikkor Z MC 105mm.

Compared to the Nikon Nikkor Z MC 105mm F/2.8 VR S

I’ve already touched upon the many ways that the Nikkor Z MC 50mm F/2.8 is different from the 105mm. Briefly, I’ll repeat.

The first and most obvious difference is that the 50mm lens is a 50mm lens. That means it’s smaller than the 105mm, shoots more “normal” photos, and will probably be more useful to everyday and casual photographers. It would be possible, and indeed possibly preferable for many people, to buy and mount the Z MC 50mm and use it as an all-around lens that can also take true 1:1 macro photos. People have been doing this since the original Nikon F and the pre-AI Nikon 50mm Micro Nikkor.

The Z MC 50mm is smaller and lighter than the 105mm by a wide margin.

It costs about $400 less than the 105mm.

The macro photos it makes will be just as good for the vast majority of non-professional photo nerds.

The Z 50mm MC is not part of Nikon’s S lens series. Thus, the 50mm’s optical formula, coatings, and build are of a supposedly lower standard. Will the lack of Nano Crystals and ARNEO coatings be missed if we choose to buy the 50mm? Probably not. But maybe so. It depends on the pixel peeping habits of the user.

The Z 50mm MC’s focusing is external, which could allow dust and contaminants to enter the 50mm lens over time.

Finally, the 50mm lacks the OLED display screen of the 105mm.

Still, it’s hard not to choose the Z 50mm MC when we see what it can do and how much it costs compared to the 105mm. With those savings, we could buy the amazing ES-2 Film Digitizing Adapter, which fits to the front of the Z 50mm MC and allows us to digitally “scan” 35mm film negatives and mounted slide. For me, a film shooter, that’s a very attractive product, and one that cannot be used with the larger Z 105mm MC.

There exist a number of alternative, non-Nikon, macro lenses for Nikon’s Z Mount system from in numerous focal lengths from Venus Optics, Voigtlander, and TTArtisan, to name a few. These lenses, however, are all manual focus lenses. For this reason, I hesitate to dive too deeply in comparing these to Nikon’s AF lenses since the core functionality differences are so great.

Final Thoughts

The Nikon Nikkor Z MC 50mm F/2.8 is essentially two great lenses in one. It works beautifully as a standard 50mm lens and again as a dedicated 1:1 true macro lens. Additionally, it’s the smallest and lightest 50mm lens in the Z Series system. For users who are looking to minimize their weight and cost, it’s a wonderful prime lens to add to the collection.

However it’s also a compromise, and users who value pure performance over all else will likely find themselves wishing they’d spent the extra money on a dedicated 50mm and the 105mm macro from Nikon’s S line.

I think of the Nikon Nikkor Z MC 50mm F/2.8 as the perfect starting point in a photographer’s macro journey. It’s a lens that will pleasantly surprise its owner with years and years of amazing photos, both standard photos and macro photos. To be fair, it may be the only macro lens a person ever needs.

Get your own Nikon Nikkor Z MC 50mm F/2.8 from B&H Photo

Nikon NIKKOR Z MC 50mm f/2.8 Macro Lens

Buy Nikon NIKKOR Z MC 50mm f/2.8 Macro Lens featuring Z-Mount Lens/FX Format, Aperture Range: f/2.8 to f/22, One ED Element, One Aspherical Element, 1:1 Magnification, 6.3″ Minimum Focus, STM Autofocus System, Focus Range Limiter, Magnification and Focus Distance Indexes, Weather-Sealed Construction…

Read More

www.bhphotovideo.com

Buy a camera from our shop at F Stop Cameras

Follow Casual Photophile on Youtube, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram

[Some of the links in this article will direct users to our affiliates at B&H Photo, Amazon, and eBay. By purchasing anything using these links, Casual Photophile may receive a small commission at no additional charge to you. This helps Casual Photophile produce the content we produce. Many thanks for your support.]

The post Nikon Nikkor Z MC 50mm F/2.8 Macro / Standard Lens Review appeared first on Casual Photophile.

So, I did. And I’m glad I did. But it’s time to move on. The 50mm lens is tired and boring. After all, it has been the “standard” lens for a hundred years, and a hundred years is a bit too long for a thing to go unchallenged.

And anyway, the “standard” title comes of dubious origin. According to most people who care to speak about this sort of thing, the 50mm lens is the standard lens because it is the photographic lens which most closely approximates human vision. Though if we ask anyone who makes this claim to kindly elaborate and elucidate, most can’t or won’t. 

The truth is, 50mm lenses do not accurately approximate what we humans see. They just don’t.

Ignoring the fact that our vision is binocular, and ignoring the fact that our retinas are concave and not flat like the plane of a film or image sensor, and ignoring the fact that we have foveal and peripheral vision, and that our overall field of view tends to be closer to 180º while a 50mm lens shoots a field of view of approximately 47º, ignoring all that…

Wait, I don’t recall where I was going with this.

Wait. Yes, I do!

Ignoring all of the physics and human anatomy stuff that I won’t claim to totally understand, we should’ve known by anecdotal evidence that the “50mm as human eye” crowd was wrong. They can’t even agree what’s standard amongst themselves.

For as long as the internet’s been around, every conversation around the 50mm standard lens eventually devolves into argument.

Someone somewhere tells someone else to buy a 50mm lens because it approximates human vision and some freak weirdo stumbles into the forum to claim that “AKSHUALLY” 35mm, not 50mm, is the standard focal length because that’s what the human eye really sees. And then they’re interrupted by the quirky freak weirdo screaming that the Konica 40mm is the standard lens because that’s what the human eye really sees. And then they’re interrupted by the rich freak weirdo screaming that the Leica 75mm is the standard lens because that’s what the human eye really sees. And then they’re interrupted by the—you get the idea.

The simple truth in the origin of the 50mm lens as “the standard” is that the 50mm lens was simply the most cost-effective lens for a camera company to package and sell with their cameras. Lenses of that focal length happened to also make images that looked good, and pretty normal, so we all called it the standard and dutifully proselytized that everyone should buy one and the camera companies sold a hell of a lot of nifty fifties.

Consequently, the actual reason that the 50mm lens has been “the standard” for almost a hundred years is because most pictures over that time were made with a 50mm lens, and we got used to it. Most of the shots we saw in magazines and family photo albums and slides and snapshots from holidays and everything else were made with a 50mm lens. The images, through their sheer ubiquity, made the lens that took them the standard.

And I think that that definition is much more useful and practical than some strange correlation between a camera lens and human vision. For me, the standard lens should always be defined as simply the most-used lens.

But something interesting has happened in the last decade or two.

The most popular cameras in the world aren’t made by Canon or Nikon or Kodak, and they don’t come with a 50mm lens, as they had between (basically) the 1930s until the late 1990s. The most ubiquitous camera in the world today comes attached to a phone with an half-eaten apple on it, and the focal length of the “standard” lens on this most-used camera has an equivalent full frame focal length of approximately 26mm. In terms of “real photographers” that’s perilously close to ultra-wide territory. Not even wide-angle. Ultra-wide!

So, without even trying, iPhone and smartphones at large have essentially shifted the “standard” focal length away from 50mm into the realm of the ultra-wide.

I, for one, love it. I love wide angle lenses. I think they’re more dynamic, and it takes more work to get a good picture. With a wide-angle lens we can’t rely on the crutch of subject isolation and bokeh. We have to concentrate on filling the frame with interesting things. We have to get close to our subject.

The result is that we have pictures which, in fact, don’t look like the everyday. The new normal lens makes images that contrarily don’t look like what we see with our human eyes. Which gets us closer to the whole point of photography, the very reason why we should even bother making pictures with a camera: that is, to show us something we can’t see every day.

Buy a Wide Angle Lens on eBay here

Buy a nice used lens from our shop at F Stop Cameras

Follow Casual Photophile on Youtube, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram

[Some of the links in this article will direct users to our affiliates at B&H Photo, Amazon, and eBay. By purchasing anything using these links, Casual Photophile may receive a small commission at no additional charge to you. This helps Casual Photophile produce the content we produce. Many thanks for your support.]

Leica Elmarit-R 28mm F/2.8 Lens Review

James reviews the Leica Elmarit-R 28mm F/2.8 wide-angle fast prime lens for Leica R mount and digital mirrorless cameras!

Read More

casualphotophile.com

The post The Dubious Origin and Uncertain Future of the “Standard” 50mm Lens appeared first on Casual Photophile.

In the 21st century film photography world we spend countless hours combing through forums, watching videos, reading articles (getting a bit self-aware here), and having conversations with fellow photographers, all to figure out what gear we should drool over next, or what niche camera will be smart to buy before they all vanish from the market. This tendency for gear obsession has recently reached a breaking point with me.

This article is the result, and it will combine a bit of review, a bit of opinion, and a bit of philosophical rambling. Hopefully, at the conclusion, you will come away refreshed and with a bit of clarity (like I have).

I will begin by laying out the gear that I used while on my journey toward centering my photographic soul.

First, the Nikon F. What can I say that has not been said already about this important piece of photographic history? I know that James reviewed it many years ago, and it’s been mentioned by some of the other writers of Casual Photophile several times since. For my purposes, I’ll lay it out as simply as possible; this camera, compared to what came out later in the Nikon F lineage, is as simple as you can possibly get.

The Nikon F is like an old Toyota Land Cruiser, it has the minimum features that you need, and that’s it. The camera is as utilitarian an SLR as any that you could possibly find. That being said, it has made some of history’s most important photographs.

The Nikon F went into space, it trekked through the Arctic, and it even saved stopped a bullet from ending Don McCullin’s life in Cambodia. This camera is not only the epitome of simplicity, but it also represents a quality of build and longevity that hasn’t been seen in modern camera systems in quite some time.

Nikon F - The Camera That Changed Everything

If there’s one camera that’s been a constant presence throughout my years as a photographer and writer, it is Nikon's first SLR.

Next, I want to talk about my choice of lens. Why a 50mm? Simple. Everyone’s first SLR almost always comes with a 50mm lens attached to the body. It’s the standard focal length from the 1930s through today (though there is some argument to be made that the “standard” lens is changing to a wider angle these days).

Okay, but why the 50mm f/2? Why not a faster, fancier lens? Most of the 50mm lenses that would’ve come attached to SLRs in the film era would have been the faster, ubiquitous f/1.8. The spendy among us might have even splurged on the f/1.4 gem. But not me. I wanted my back-to-basics lens to be as bare bones as possible. So, it was the Nikkor 50mm f/2, specifically.

But while I admittedly chose Nikon’s slowest 50mm lens, that doesn’t mean that I chose the worst one optically, not by any stretch. The Nikkor 50mm f/2 is an overlooked, underrated piece from the legendary line of Nikkor manual focus lenses. There is something of a cult following around this lens, and the people like me who are a part of this small group have a tremendous love for the optical characteristics this lens offers.

The Nikkor 50mm f/2 was introduced in 1959, the same year as the Nikon F. It first debuted with a concave front element, as it was a carry over from the Nikon S rangefinder line of lenses. These lenses can be easily identified by the writing on the front of the lens, with 5cm being the indicator in place of the later common 50mm. No notable changes were made until 1972, when multi-coating was introduced to the glass.

In 1974, the close focusing distance was lessened from 0.6m (about 2ft) to 0.45m (1.5ft). When Nikon entered the AI era in 1977, the writing was on the wall for this lens with Nikon’s optical engineers. Then, in 1979, the 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor was introduced, promptly ending the twenty-years-long production run of the Nikkor 50mm f/2.

The optical formula of the 50mm f/2 is comprised of six elements in four groups, and this it retained throughout its entire production. It also has the smallest aperture range of the Nikkor 50mm lenses, with a minimum aperture of only f/16 and maximum at f/2. All other Nikkor 50mm lenses have f/22 as the minimum.

The aperture diaphragm consists of six blades, which is unusual in the Nikkor realm, since all of the other Nikkor lenses were made with an odd number of blades, with seven or nine being the most common. The bokeh produced by this six aperture bladed system has been described as “hexagonal” which is most certainly true, and I must say, for someone like me who doesn’t normally pay particular attention to the mushy, squishy background, I was thoroughly surprised by how nice this lens renders that space. I have seen people here and there online refer to this lens as the “Japanese Summicron” and I don’t think that I can disagree. Yes, Leica lords, there is a potential rival to the 50mm Summicron that is so beloved by M users, but I don’t think that sentiment is meant to be construed in that manner. I think what that moniker means, at least to me, is that what this lens lacks in aperture performance, it makes up for in sharpness and contrast.

The overall rendering characteristics of the lens itself is marvelous. It’s sharp, contrasty where it needs to be, and it portrays an overall classic touch to photographs that I don’t think many lenses can offer.

Finally, to round out the roll call, what back-to-basics film did I use?

When I was pondering this decision by looking at what film I had in my stock, the answer soon made itself clear. How much more basic can you get than Tri-X? Not just any roll of Tri-X, an expired roll of Tri-X Pan. I won’t get into how to shoot expired film, James already put in his two cents about the one stop for every decade rule in an earlier article. Since expired black and white film holds up better than expired color film, I simply decided to use the Sunny 16 method, shoot the film at its box speed of 400 and be on my way.

You may ask: Why Tri-X? My answer to that: Why not? Tri-X is old faithful, it’s tried and true, it’s the film that photographers will unanimously swear by (and I say all of this as a massive purveyor of the TMAX emulsion). Tri-X is the one film that you can count on for any kind of shooting. At box speed, this film is contrast heavy, yet still retains shadow details. Pushed two stops, the contrast increases significantly and that signature Tri-X look is on full display. There’s nothing fancy with Tri-X and that’s why I chose it. Its long lasting legacy as one of Kodak’s most enduring film stocks is unmatched, which is kind of bittersweet since I don’t hear many people outside of a certain age group talk about it too often.

Shooting a Twenty-Year-Old Roll of Kodak Supra 100 Film

James shoots an expired, twenty-year-old roll of Kodak Supra 100, an ultra-fine grain, high saturation color negative film.

Alright, by now, you may have noticed a building theme with what I’ve chosen to be the focal point. Yes, you would be right, everything I’ve talked about so far has been described as simple, utilitarian, or “just works”. None of those are bad things; quite the opposite. While I was out shooting this roll of Tri-X not once did I have a second thought about any of the images I took. I did what I had set out to accomplish; I focused on my surroundings, composed the photographs I saw as they happened, clicked the shutter, and on to the next.

One could describe this as a liberating experience. This is what photography (film or digital) should be all about; composing, waiting, deciding, clicking the shutter, and moving onto the next photograph. The purity of the process, being present, listening to the camera’s mechanical movements, feeling the weight of the camera body in your hands or on your shoulder while you carry it through the world. This is zen my fellow camera-holics.

It was only through experiencing this unique sort of camera clarity that I realized what I was struggling with in my photographic universe. Like most people, I’ve acquired, sold, and even traded dozens of cameras along the way. I’ve had several 35mm systems and several medium format systems, and I’ve even had them all at one time. But having multiple camera systems, no matter the format, have never helped me make photographs any easier. As I acquired more and more cameras, not only did I suffer from less shelf space, but my ability to grow into the photographer that I wanted to become was actually hindered by my gear acquisition syndrome.

You may be wondering, why randomly bring up G.A.S. in the middle of an article talking about going back to basics? Well, simple – I needed to force myself out of my comfort zone to see my own weaknesses. My weaknesses were within my own mind.

I’ll explain – in my quest for gathering a small group of SLRs that can do it all across different camera bodies, why couldn’t I just find an SLR that can do everything that I need out of the several that I have and downsize? I know everyone is different in this matter, but when it comes to gear, I do not like having gear that will mostly live on a shelf. I use my gear and I expect to get full use out of it as it was intended. Ultimately, these are professionally crafted tools. Some, I will concede, are collector’s pieces; looking at you Lenny Kravitz Edition Leica owners.

After writing the first draft of this article, I decided to take this moment of clarity and cleanse myself of the excessive gear that has plagued me. I have sold all of my 35mm Nikon bodies; Nikon F included. Why then, would I dedicate an entire article to a camera that I no longer own? I wanted to share my experience with using the most basic camera body and lens, a combination that allowed me to experience pure photography and helped lead to this moment.

There are some things the Nikon F lacks that could have enhanced the experience altogether, but it was only when shooting with it did I realize that these features could have actually refined my process of making photographs. I went through all of this to find out that I don’t actually need a library of gear to make the work I desire. Some people do, and more power to them. But for the other people who are like me and can’t stand to have an abundance of gear, this journey of going back to the bare minimum to realize what I realistically need for my arsenal, in this case a 35mm camera, was much needed and welcomed.

My 35mm slate is officially blank. Where to now? Do I find the end all, be all for my personal preferences? Do I switch over to an entirely new system altogether? Will James let us exclusively review large format gear? Tune in next time for another gear talking, shutter clicking, lens turning episode of Casual Photophile.

Browse for your own Back To Basics camera on eBay here

Search our shop at F Stop Cameras here

Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Youtube

[Some of the links in this article will direct users to our affiliates at B&H Photo, Amazon, and eBay. By purchasing anything using these links, Casual Photophile may receive a small commission at no additional charge to you. This helps Casual Photophile produce the content we produce. Many thanks for your support.]

The post Back to Basics with a Nikon F, 50mm f/2, and a roll of Tri-X appeared first on Casual Photophile.

In response there has popped up a veritable cottage industry of X Pan alternatives. Some are just other panoramic cameras that aren’t quite as advanced or expensive as the X Pan, like the swinging Widelux or the Lomo Sprocket Rocket. Some are DIY efforts, like Freeman Lin’s Presspan or Cameradactyl’s Broncopan. The now immense price of the X Pan has created a genuine market opportunity for creators to invest in systems that justify a still not inexpensive price and a certain degree of kludgeiness in order to get some decent glass in front of a panoramic frame.

A Digital XPan

Creating a digital X Pan has had its own challenges. Virtually all modern camera sensors come in a 3:2 or 4:3 aspect ratio. Most digital cameras will let you crop this down in-body down to 16:9, but this leaves a lot of megapixels on the table without really coming close to the X Pan’s 2.7:1 aspect ratio. To crop down to the X Pan’s aspect ratio, a typical 24 megapixel sensor will only make panoramic images equivalent to about 13 megapixels.

There have been a few digital camera bodies that are a little more suited to panoramas along the X Pan lines. Andrew, of the YouTube channel Andrew & Danae, has been digging into a few of these and has some great videos on thed subject. Two of his recommendations are the Sigma SD Quattro H and Fujifilm GFX line, both of which let you shoot in-body with a 21:9 and 65:24 aspect ratio, respectively. These still have the issue of losing resolution with in-body cropping, but at least these cameras have the megapixels to spare, so we still get usable files.

However, even the cheapest Fujifilm GFX 50R is going to set us back around $2,500 dollars before we even get any glass to mount to it. The Quattro H is cheaper, but isn’t quite the sleeper camera it was a few years ago, also starting north of $1,000 for just a body.

My quest was to find something that could give me a truly high quality panoramic sized image for a little less money.

The Anamorphic Answer

After some researching, I hit upon the idea of trying out anamorphic lenses. Anamorphic lenses are used in video work to achieve wide aspect ratios, effectively squeezing a wider horizontal angle onto a film or image sensor, which is then “desqueezed” either in post-processing or in projection. I don’t pretend to really know how the physics of it works, but it works.

I think the reason this hasn’t been done much before was because these lenses have traditionally been rather pricey and large. Hey, if you’re shooting a big budget movie, budget is a minor detail. But I recently found out that the company Sirui has developed series of anamorphic primes for APS-C cameras that were relatively affordable and not completely chonky, so I decided to try one out.

Sirui offers a wide range of fairly affordable and fast anamorphic lenses for both full-frame and APS-C cameras. My main camera is a Fujifilm X-T2, so in X-mount my options were a 24mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8 or 75mm f1.8. I went with the 50mm as it’s the lightest and smallest option, as well as being significantly less expensive than the others. It’s worth noting that in other mounts, Sirui also makes a 35mm f1.8. Just as I finished writing this piece Venus Optics announced a crowdfunding campaign for the Laowa Nanomorph line of anamorphic lenses, which are significantly smaller and lighter, although more expensive.

So Wait, How Do Anamorphic Lenses Work?

The basic idea is that an anamorphic lens compresses the horizontal view of your lens to let you get a wider field of view onto an otherwise fairly square sensor. This squeezing is measured in a squeeze ratio, kind of like the crop factor of a digital sensor. The Sirui APS-C lineup squeezes your image at 1.33x horizontally. This is a fairly mild squeeze ratio (anamorphic lenses can go up to 2x or more). After shooting, I generally use an iOS app called Desqueeze to process the images. I’m a weirdo who mostly processes RAW files in-camera and then send those RAW shots to my phone for edits. It works for me.

Shooting with an Anamorphic Lens

Shooting with the Sirui 50mm has been an interesting experience. I don’t want to nitpick the lens too badly. Afterall, it’s meant to be a video lens first and foremost. It seems unfair to be too critical about it when shooting stills, given that it was never designed with that purpose in mind. But here’s what to expect if you want to do the same.

On my X-T2, it’s not overly heavy. It’s fairly long for a not-that-fast prime lens, but it balances well on the body. In a lot of ways, its similar to shooting any vintage glass on a mirrorless system. There are no contacts between the lens and the camera, so you lose out on metadata.

The biggest difference from shooting traditional still lenses is found in the Sirui’s aperture ring. It’s clickless, which isn’t entirely unusual in the era of third-party lenses whose designer’s know that many of us are also shooting video these days. Chinese lens makers like Viltrox and 7Artisans have used clickless apertures on their lenses before. But what’s weird with the Sirui is that the aperture uses non-uniform f-stops. A typical lens’ aperture ring has roughly the same distance between f-stops, with the change in exposure being mostly identical between each clip of the ring. On the Sirui lens the distance between stops varies. The span between f/1.8 and f/2.8 is huge, the majority of the aperture ring’s action is found between just these stops. The distances between subsequent diminishing stops get shorter in between, so that the slowest stops at the end are barely differentiated. It’s not bad, just weird. At least the aperture ring on my copy isn’t loose, so it stays in place. The focus throw is also a bit long, but again, for video shooters, probably a good thing.

Composing with an anamorphic is interesting. I’ve shot with a lot of 50mm vintage lenses on my X-T2 before and it’s always a weird focal length with the crop factor. It’s just into the telephoto range but not so bad that you’re backing up too much indoors. On an anamorphic, you get a lot more horizontal real estate to work with. I did a little test chart, and horizontally, you get almost as much field of view as my Zeiss 32mm f1.8. But it’s somewhat challenging to work with.

An image from the SIrui before processing.

My main frustration is the minimum focus distance of 0.85 meters. For a lot of still shots, it ends up that I’m just a little farther away than I want to be to get dramatic depth of field. Admittedly in the anamorphic world this minimum focus distance is pretty impressive, but for stills we’re doing worse than a Leica rangefinder, which ain’t great. The other issue is the nature of the panoramic framing makes it a little tough to compose portraits, which stinks when  using a lens with a field of view otherwise well suited to portraits. With familiarity it’s possible to work around these limitations, but I won’t pretend they aren’t frustrating at times. If it wasn’t for the added weight and expense, I think the 28mm might be a better choice.

What did really impress me was the image quality. I had seen good reviews on the Sirui 50mm from a couple of different sources. But still, this is a fairly expensive lens from a company best known for making tripods. I wasn’t sure if it was getting graded on a curve.

It’s not an incredibly sharp lens, in some ways the rendering reminds me of my Pentax-M 50mm 1.7. But when in going for a digital X Pan, I feel most people won’t want clinical sharpness anyway. It’s plenty usable, even wide open. And shooting wide open is great, because I really love how it shifts from in-focus to out-of-focus areas. Maybe it’s just the wider aspect ratio, but it really seems to handle this transition gracefully. At 50mm, there is some nice background separation even when stopped down a bit, something much trickier to achieve on the slower lenses of the actual X Pan.

Shooting a squeezed image on my X-T2 wasn’t that bad. I probably wouldn’t want to go much more squeezed than the 1.33x ratio (those Venus Optical lenses go for 1.5x). I find that I really need to use my grid lines on the EVF when composing si that I put my subject proportionately in the frame where I want. On landscapes the squeeze isn’t that hard to mentally overcome, but with people shots it can be a little distracting. The biggest challenge is that focusing is a bit more mentally taxing. Even with focus peaking on, I have to zoom in much more than I usually do to check focus, The squeeze makes it a harder to just glance and check focus – another reason I think any further squeeze would be challenging.

Is it worth it?

Shooting with anamorphic lenses isn’t exactly effortless. There’s still a bit of a learning curve while shooting and processing the files. But it does provide one of the few ways to compose a true panoramic single shot image with a digital body.

As far as my own shooting, I’ve gone hot and cold with anamorphic lenses. After keeping this one on my camera for a while, I inevitably got a little tired of the added weight and quirky ergonomics. But whenever I put the lens back on, the unique format always gives me a new creative spark. It’s not like the X Pan itself is an everyday kind of camera, so I’m happy to use this lens in much the same way – as a creative spark.

Plus, if I ever want to pretend to be a filmmaker I have the perfect lens for some make-believe. If anything, I hope the continuing price escalation on the real X Pan keeps driving people to these lenses as an alternative, if only for the remote chance that the increased excitement for anamorphic lenses urges someone to make one that’s better-suited for stills.

The post Shooting the Anamorphic Sirui 50mm Lens is Like Shooting a Digital X Pan appeared first on Casual Photophile.

It’s a seventy-year-old work of mechanical art from an historic photography brand. It’s solidly made, with a capable lens and interesting features. Its methodology is at first strange and obtuse, yet extended use reveals its charm. And it also provides that most elusive of all qualities in today’s world of classic camera appreciation – it’s affordable! Yes, the Graphic 35 was made for these pages.

Brief History of Graflex

For fifty years prior to the release of the Graphic 35, Graflex had been known for their medium format and large format cameras, specifically their famous press cameras, which were the standard for much of the world’s press throughout the first half of the 20th century. By 1955, when the Graphic 35 debuted, the brand had lost many of its customers to smaller, easier-to-use photographic tools. Despite this decline, Graflex was an important name in photography for some of the craft’s most formative decades and their history deserves a look.

Founded in New York City in 1887 by William Folmer and William Schwing as the Folmer and Schwing Manufacturing Company, the company that would be called Graflex produced metalworks including gas light fixtures and chandeliers. As the market for gas lighting declined, the company ramped up manufacturing of bicycles, and in 1899 they released their first Graflex camera. As the camera achieved success, the company dropped its non-photographic manufacturing lines to focus on cameras.

In 1905 the Folmer and Schwing manufacturing Company was acquired by George Eastman, founder of Kodak, and in 1907 it became the Folmer Graflex Division of Eastman Kodak and the works were transferred to Kodak’s hometown of Rochester, New York. There Kodak would continue to produce Graflex press cameras for a number of years.

In 1926, violations by Kodak of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 meant that Kodak was forced to divest itself of a number of business concerns, one of which was Graflex. Graflex, Inc. was subsequently operated under independent ownership until 1968, when it was sold to Singer Corporation (of sewing machine fame), who continued Graflex, Inc. operations until 1973, when the brand was finally wound down and all tooling sold to the Japanese view-camera manufacturer Toyo Corporation.

Throughout this period, Graflex created some amazing press cameras. The Graflex and Graphic range of machines were used by some of the greatest press photographers, who created many of the most iconic press images of the first half of the 20th century with Graflex cameras. In fact, no other camera manufacturer can claim as many Pulitzer Prizes as Graflex.

Notable users of the Graflex and Graphic press cameras include Dorothea Lang, Arthur Fellig (more popularly known as Weegee), Ansel Adams, Margaret Bourke-White, and Louis Mendes (among countless others).

The Graphic 35 in Its Own Time

The Graphic 35 is very different from the cameras that Graflex is most known for producing. Where their press cameras were large and serious and required attention and expertise to use effectively, the Graphic 35 was comparatively small and streamlined, and intended for use by amateur or enthusiast photographers.

When the Graphic 35 was conceived in 1955, photography was rapidly shifting from a complicated art form into a hobby for everyone. Cameras were becoming easier to use and less specialized, and photography was suddenly a way for people to easily and beautifully document their lives in an optimistic, forward-facing, post-war recovering, baby-booming 1950s America. Camera companies were rounding the edges off of their machines (figuratively speaking) and creating cameras that the average mom or dad could point at their kids, set a few dials (usually color-coded or marked with fool-proof indicators) and snap a shot for the family photo album.

The Graphic 35 was this sort of camera. Except, unlike some competition from Kodak or West-German companies, the Graphic 35 balanced its functionality more evenly. It wasn’t so simple as to be limiting as some of the consumer-level Kodaks were, and it wasn’t too complicated to scare buyers away.

The Graphic 35 was a camera which took elements of successful past cameras and combined them with attention-grabbing innovations (I won’t call them gimmicks). In some ways, it was a traditional camera with cost-saving compromises such as the rangefinder focusing viewer remaining unintegrated within the main finder, as found on many older cameras. But it also included innovative features like its push-button focusing mechanism and fool-proof Spectramatic Flash System, and front-mounted shutter release lever. These innovative features were heavily promoted by the Graflex marketing team as ergonomic godsends.

In addition to this excellent balance of usability and capability, the Graphic 35 was one of the best values in photography at the time of its release. Costing just $77 for the version equipped with the 50mm F/3.5 lens and $98 for the faster F/2.8 lens, it was one of the most affordable full-featured 35mm film rangefinder-focusing cameras in production at that time.

The result of the camera’s combination of respectable performance, eye-catching new features and reasonable price was as we’d expect; it was popular. In just tree years of production, the Graphic 35 sold approximately 68,000 units.

Graflex Graphic 35 Specifications

• Film Type : 35mm film
• Shutter : Prontor SVS leaf shutter, speeds B, 1, 1/2, 1/5, 1/10, 1/25, 1/50, 1/100, 1/300
• Lens : Two fixed lenses available – 50mm F/3.5 Graflar; 50mm F/2.8 Graflar; both lenses color-corrected and coated
• Filters : 31.5mm diameter screw on filters
• Focusing : Coupled split image rangefinder with push button focusing (patented Visi-ready Footage Scale)
• Viewfinder : Two finders – one for focusing and one for composing
• Flash Capability : X Sync at all shutter speeds; M bulbs at all speeds; M2 bulbs up to 1/50th
• Self Timer : Yes
• Cable Release Socket : Yes
• Tripod Mount : Yes
• Frame Counter : Yes

Notes on the Innovators

The Graflex marketing team honed in on two innovative control mechanisms found in the Graphic 35 and featured those innovations prominently in their marketing material. These were the push-button focusing system and the Spectramatic Flash System.

The focusing mechanism is particularly interesting. Many traditional focusing methods involve spinning the camera’s lens, which turns on a helicoid and moves the optical group closer to or further from the film plane. But the Graflex Graphic 35 replaces this system with a pair of sympathetic levers to the left and right of the lens. By pushing one or the other inward, the lens extends from or retracts into the camera body. The system has a corresponding dial atop the lens mount which shows the focusing range precisely. This allows the user to either scale focus at a glance, or for more precision, to look through the rangefinder window to the coupled split-image rangefinder patch. When the images within the rangefinder window align, the subject is in focus.

This focusing system was invented by a Graflex employee participating in a development program which Graflex created in an effort to drive innovation within the company. Graflex employees could submit an idea, and if it proved useful or valuable, the company would pay a bonus to the inventor and officially submit the patent.

The push-button focusing method was created by a man named Louis Traino, who worked as an instrument maker in Graflex’s experimental shop. He developed the focusing system during his off-hours at his family home, presented it to the company, and was awarded a $4,000 prize when his invention was integrated into Graflex cameras. For reference, that $4,000 is approximately $40,000 today. In a newspaper clipping from the time, the Traino family said that they intended to use the award money to buy a house. Mr. Traino’s wife was reported to insist that their new house should have a dedicated workshop for her husband. (This is so cute.)

I’ve included the patent documents for Mr. Traino’s invention below.

The Spectramatic Flash System was another new innovation found in the Graphic 35. Graflex’s Director of Engineering, Vernon Whitman, came up with an idea for simplifying flash photography by using color coded bands which would tell the photographer which aperture to use depending on distance to subject and flash guide number.

After setting the guide number for the flash being used, the photographer focuses on his or her subject and observes the color represented on the focusing scale. After that, the photographer simply selects the aperture with the matching color.

It’s a very simple system, when explained, but it was still confusing to many users and dealers at the time of the Graphic’s release. For this reason, push-button focusing remained the camera’s most emphasized feature.

I’ve included the patent documents for the flash system below.

The Graphic 35 Today

I used my Graflex Graphic 35 in 2021; that’s 66 years after someone in Rochester tightened the final screw and packed it in a box to be shipped to a camera shop. Cameras have come a long way in those 66 years, and yet the Graphic 35 remains a lot of great things, things that we still value in a camera today.

It’s compact. It’s dense. It’s beautiful. It’s well-made and works like magic. Its knobs and dials and switches and levers actuate with precision, emitting the whirrs and clicks and thwicks that mechanical-thing-likers live for. In an earlier article, I called the Zeiss Contina a “clockwork camera” (a term that other bloggers and YouTubers have adopted despite a conspicuous absence of royalty checks). The Graphic 35 is similarly clock-like.

Its die-cast body is elegant and concise, and its satin-finished metal is smooth and pretty. The removable back is thick and weighty, and its scratch-free pressure plate is lovely. Knurling on its controls is precise and fine. The leatherette is a gorgeous grey-tone covering which perfectly complements the satin-finish metal. The tiny, blue Graflex logo is mesmerizing for idiots, like me, who love three-dimensional decorative embellishments. (Have you seen the Linhoff crest?)

The film advance is controlled via a knob, which was already old fashioned in the Graphic 35’s own time, and slower than a wind lever. In addition, film advance is not coupled to the shutter, so cocking the shutter must be done independent of film advance. This, more than any other unusual feature (push-button focus, front-mounted shutter release lever) slowed me down. I simply wasn’t used to this intermediate step between film advance and firing a shot. On the plus side, I got used to it within a couple of rolls and the problem evaporated. Another angle – this methodology means that multiple exposures are possible at any time – simply re-cock and fire the shutter without winding the film.

The push-button focusing system, new and strange when it debuted 66 years ago, is still new and strange. Throughout my first roll of film, focusing was slower than with a traditional focusing helicoid as I adapted to the methodology. By my second roll of film, focusing felt natural and I no longer found myself thinking about the process. By my third roll, focusing was (perhaps) very slightly quicker than when spinning a lens.

Scale focusing works great, but in instances in which I needed more precision, a quick glance through the separate rangefinder focusing window allowed near instant focus lock. Like any other rangefinder camera, focus is achieved when the image in the split image viewfinder lines up. It’s easy and fast, despite the requirement to focus in one finder and compose in another.

Do I wish the rangefinder patch was integrated into the main viewfinder? Of course! Many cameras of the Graphic 35’s era were doing just that (the Konica fixed lens rangefinders of this period are a personal favorite). But the Graphic’s disposition toward the older two-finder system isn’t a deal breaker. It works fine and becomes second nature in time (that said, second nature is still not first…).

The most useful practical takeaway on the focusing system would be the observation that when my film was developed I hadn’t missed focus on more photos in a roll than I would have with a traditional focusing system. I missed a few shots, but that wasn’t the system’s fault – I would’ve missed them on any other camera as well due to subject movement, or my bad eyesight, or because a mosquito buzzed my ear just before snapping the shot, or because of any other of a number of factors which make us human.

I’ve heard it said that for a new technology or a new way of doing something that has long been done through other established methods to gain widespread adoption and success, that new technology or way of doing things cannot be only as good as the old technology or old way. It must be unquestionably better. It must be cheaper to manufacture, or provide a far improved user experience or yield measurably better results. This focusing system isn’t better than other focusing systems. It’s as good, when we get used to it, sure. But it’s not better.

And it’s because of this, perhaps, that push-button focusing is found on very few cameras (literally, about four in the history of photography). Whether this reticence for adoption or replication by other brands is simply because it was a patented system and companies didn’t want to pay the patent holders to use it on their own cameras, or because it’s simply not good enough I won’t venture to guess. But I think I know.

If you’re looking for my final judgement regarding push-button focusing on the Graphic 35, I’ve got you.

It works fine. Don’t be scared of it.

The Spectramatic Flash system, ignored by the casual photographer in its own time, will be similarly ignored today (likely more so). I rarely use a flash, and most vintage camera shooters are similarly flash-averse. I so completely doubt that anyone reading this review will actually use their Graphic 35’s flash system that I’m done typing about it.

My version is equipped with the 50mm F/2.8 Graflar prime lens. It’s the faster of the two available lenses, and its coated to resist flares and punch up clarity. The lenses of the Graphic 35 were manufactured by one of two German firms, Rodenstock or Enna Werk (the exact manufacturing details are lost, but both of these suppliers were contracted by Graflex to produce their lenses). Mine is marked with an “R” to signify Rodenstock manufacture. Whichever version comes attached to your Graphic is fine. There will be no appreciable difference in images made by one compared to the other. If you need the extra stop of light gathering (if, say, you love shooting at night), get the F/2.8.

Shots through this lens and the German Prontor SVS leaf shutter, are sharp and contrasty. Edge image quality is naturally softer than it is in the center, but as we stop the aperture down the image sharpens up beautifully. Shot wide open and focused on a close subject, we can get some decent bokeh that, while not being creamy smooth, does have some nice character. Focus fall-off is gradual and fluid.

Simply put, this lens produces beautiful, vintage-styled photographs. Those who enjoy classic lenses will find nothing about which to complain.

Final Thoughts

The Graflex Graphic 35, as mentioned in my opening, is the kind of camera for which I created Casual Photophile. It costs almost nothing today, and it’s worth every penny (it would be worth twice the pennies, actually). It’s an unusual camera. It’s a nice looking camera. It feels great in the hands and makes all the right sounds. It’s unlike anything else that you could’ve bought new in the past sixty years.

On top of all of the tactile and cerebral stimulation that the Graphic 35 provides, it’s also quite simply a capable camera. Capable of taking great photos. Capable of keeping me interested. Capable of making me smile. I really like it, and if you’re like me you’ll like it, too.

Get your own Graflex Graphic 35 on eBay here

Shop for any camera at our shop, F Stop Cameras

Buy film on Amazon and eBay

Follow Casual Photophile on Facebook and Instagram

[Some of the links in this article will direct users to our affiliates at B&H Photo, Amazon, and eBay. By purchasing anything using these links, Casual Photophile may receive a small commission at no additional charge to you. This helps Casual Photophile produce the content we produce. Many thanks for your support.]

The post Graflex Graphic 35 Review – Made for These Pages appeared first on Casual Photophile.