Now there is a lens to make one drool... damn expensive though. Is that what those lenses usually go for?

Kris.

I have a batch of 35mm BW films which need developing, set of small prints and scanning to CD. There are quite a few offering this service in the photographic press but I was wondering if anyone had a personal recommendation? These are all record photographs from an archaeological excavation, nothing arty about them!

Many thanks, Kris.

Yup, I saw that the other day when you sent me the link for another topic. Once my MX and I are both on the same side of the Atlantic I'll give it a whirl. I sent it off for repair a couple of years back (before I discovered Harrow Technical) and it came back "unable to obtain parts..."

Thanks for the link, extremely useful.

Best wishes, Kris.

As you can see from my signature, my cameras jump from the manual focus film days to the K10D. My only experience with the autofocus film era were very tatty examples trashed by students in our photo lab. Is there any consensus as to the best of the post A-series film cameras?

Perhaps this should be a poll?

Cheers, Kris.

Of my film cameras I still find the ME Super the one I can work most quickly with, and have the most confidence in*, but that is simply because it was the camera I used for the first ten years or more of photography! When it died I used an MX which I loved, but my current example has the battery drain problem. Mostly, now, I use the LX although it is pretty heavy! I've often thought of trying to pick-up a 40mm pancake lens and using it with one of my ME Supers as my "carry around in my pocket" camera but those lenses still command a pretty good price.

*confidence in my use of it, not the camera itself.

Cheers, Kris.

Thanks, John, for clarifying the DOF field issue, and far better than I could have done!

Best wishes, Kris.

I started keep the data because often I had no idea how much something might possibly go for. I was surprised, for example, at how much 50mm lenses sell for. I posted this simply so Dodge could say "I'll take 60 quid for the 50mm lens..." At least we have a start! I also check the prices on a second-hand camera shop's website I know (and trust their ratings for condition, not sure if I should say who here?).

Obviously, we all know that sometimes stuff goes for silly money on ebay, both silly too expensive and sometimes silly cheap.

Best wishes, Kris.

Unfortunately, I cannot lay this out as a neat table as posting deletes all the extra spaces. For each item there are four numbers: no of sales I have a record of, minimum, average and maximum prices in pounds. Where n=1 just one price is given, when n=2 both prices given. Number of sales does not reflect how common they are on ebay, but my interest in that item.

MX (body, and/or various lenses) n=29 23.20 83.09 221.00
MX winder: n=7 13.05 27.26 37.01
Super A (body and/or various lenses) n=17 16.00 63.40 180.00
ME II winder n=11 2.20 13.34 26.00
35-105 zoom n=3 29.99 60.73 87.20
70-210 zoom n=1 17.00
50mm F1.4 n=7 56.00 81.17 113.00
AF200SA n=1 13.26
AF280T n=2 18.00 22.16

Hope this helps. Kris.

For newbies to all this, the various answers have been a bit confusing, so perhaps a bit of clarification might help.

The focal length of a lens is the focal length of the lens, whatever camera you attach it to. Thus, a 100mm lens is a 100mm lens.

BUT, the angle of view that lens gives you depends on the size of the image the lens is creating (actually, how much of that image you are using). Thus, with a full plate camera (6.5 x 8.5 inch image) a six inch lens (c. 150mm) is a wide angle lens.

Many photographers, however, started and extensively used 35mm film cameras and got used to the idea that 50mm = standard lens, 28mm wide angle, 135mm medium telephoto etc. and instinctively knew which lens to go for. When switching to digital with its smaller sensor, a rough rule of thumb in terms of converting the angle of view was to multiply the lens length by 1.5. Therefore, a 50mm lens on a digital camera gives approximately the same angle of view as a 75mm lens on a 35mm camera, a 300mm lens on a digital gives roughly the same angle of view as a 450mm lens on a 35mm camera and so on.

Of course, the 1.5 rule depends on the size of the sensor. If you are using a camera with a full frame sensor, then the angle of views are the same. I have no idea what it would be for the four thirds system.

The interesting wrinkle in this, is that the other aspects of using various focal lengths remain the same. Thus, a 500mm telephoto will have the same flattening effect on an image as it always did, and the same depth of field. Thus, if you are using a specific lens for the effect it has on the look of the image, not just the difference in the angle of view, it remains the same across the board.

As an example, 80mm lenses were regarded as the ideal portrait lens, partly because you could be a little bit away from your subject, but partly for the slight flattening and flattering effect the lens has. If you are shooting digital, a 50mm lens will give you almost the same angle of view, but not the slight flattening effect. On the other hand you can pick up a F1.7 50mm lens for next to nothing on ebay (or the lovely F1.4 for slightly more) and the wide aperture allows you to shoot more easily in low light and have a narrow depth of field to throw the background out of focus.

I could go on but this message is too long already!

Best wishes, Kris.

John, I've not used other marques that much but what I do notice (and miss!) is the difference between my film camera viewfinders (especially the LX) and the digital. Every time I use the LX (which is much less than the K10D simply because carrying both is a bit back breaking) I am wowed by how BIG and clear the picture is. I guess this is all down to the smaller size of the sensor meaning that the focusing screen etc is also that much smaller.

Best wishes, Kris.