Well, nothing new there then, but what I mean is , On a serious note, I need some help. I've hopefully got an upcoming project which requires my using film. Now, recently I've acquired a Praktica SLR (an old MTL3) with a few lenses. The lenses are where I need the advice, just in general what people's opinions are and what they are more suited to. Lens one : (Even I understand this one) - Pentacon auto 1.8/50, standard lens - no problem. Lenses 2 & 3 - can't find a brand name, front reads; "AUTO P PALAR 1:2.8 f=135mm No. 258311" other is "CARL ZEISS JENA DDR MC 1:3.5 f=135" - now, evein I've heard of Carl Zeiss, but the coating on this lens has a small scratch in it. Now, please, in simple terms, what's the difference? Cheers Gang!!! (",)

I'm not much of a lens person myself Jordy, so all those acronyms I can't help you with. The only difference I myself can make out is that the first is a faster lens because the aperture stops down all the way to 2.8...while the Carl Zeiss is 3.5. , but I'm sure you knew that already! I'm sure Rork would no a thing or two about these...he seems to really be a lens junkie!

avoid the lens with the scratch if you're going to be shooting in low light. actualy, before you use any of them i'd highly suggest you go to the nearest real camera store and have a technician look at them carefuly. sounds like you have 2 telephoto lens's, one with a scratch, aside from your 50mm. hopefuly none of them have etched fingerprints in the front or back lenses.

Attached Link: http://homepage.mac.com/mattdenton/photo/cameras/praktica_mtl3.html

Looks like you've got a very nice, rugged workhorse of a camera there, Mike. It seems that that camera has rather noble bloodlines, in that the West German half of the company (Zeiss Ikon) that made the Praktica made the Contax. The East German half made your camera.

The camera takes standard M42 screwmount lenses, which is
nice because there are still a lot of good sharp lenses with
M42 mounts out there on the used market.

I can't find any info specific to your lenses, but Carl Zeiss
lenses generally get very good marks for being sharp.

135mm is a good focal length for portraits, BTW.

@Alpha, cheers, you know I need things explained simply at times!!!! lol btw, what's one of those f-stop things?!? ROFL!! Oh, and the client definately will not accept digital.....and to be honest transferring them would be more bother than it's worth for me. I'll give you all more info later in the week on what lies ahead, hopefully. It all depends on news on Tuesday and a possible little trip on Wednesday. Fingers crossed. @Asalina - thanks very much for that link, proved to be really useful. To be honest since I got given the camera (yup, another freebie!) I haven't took a great deal of interest in it - now I'm gonna hopefully be thrown in the deep end I'm having to learn.... Cheers guys! (",)

Actually, all you'd have to do is burn the images onto cd at a certain resolution (Alpha, help me out there), and give'em to a photo store (most have the ability to do that now from what I understand, at least in montreal). You can get them put onto Kodak T-Max 100 I believe. You'd have arguably the same quality ('m stingy about the topic, lemme be), and you wouldn't have to do a job using film on cameras you don't use (rule number one, never fire a thouroughly untested rifle in a battle, or use someone ele's gun. Same for cameras. If you don't use it enough to be comfortable enough to use it in a job, don't). oh, and damn you and your freebies, send it over here!

Digital is not the be all, end all. There are things you can do with film you just can't do with digital.

Most important, follow Slynk's advice and run a roll of film through it first, preferably under similar conditions to your assignment. Lots of things gould possibly go wrong, even with something new right out of the box. I think "Jena" is a city in East Germany where the original Zeiss factory was. They kept the name.

Crystal, just in case you were referring to what I said specifically, I'd like to point out that I have an overall distaste for digital. Black and white film and a darkroom are what I call home.

Sorry, Crystal, you may have misinterpreted the way I talk about digital - if you have a look through previous posts on the subject you'll find that while I do indeed prefer digital, this is because it is the medium that brought me into photography, and it has to be said that digital photography is going to be mainstream in the future. It doesn't mean I don't like film. Ok, at the moment I agree digital is not the blunt 'be all and end all' that you say, but one has to consider all mediums and circumstances, and that each medium has it's own nuances. I can do things with a digital camera that I can't do with a manual - ie. six months ago this would have been as simple as TAKE A DECENT PHOTO. Btw, you could do things with 8-track tapes that you still can't do with cd's too..........didn't stop them being taken over. The good thing about photography is that we have a choice, and will as individuals always favour one or the other. Film isn't the be all, end all either - they've both got their place here and both have advantages and disadvantages. (",)