"Kenneth M. Sarno" wrote:
> Is it just, "the bigger the better so maximize all parameters including
> cost"? Is it "they're really all the same"? I would appreciate any advice as
> to which size, brand and magnification to get.
The cheap ones are terrible, and I for one can hardly see anything through them.
They are only sharp right in the center, and everything toward the edges is
blurred. The better loupes are multi-element and have much better edge
sharpness. I have a Schneider 4x loupe and it works well enough, although I'd
like to get an 8x loupe for more critical viewing. IMO you're not going to find
a useful loupe for much less than US$100. If that's too much, try using one of
your lenses as a loupe, with the front of the lens nearest your film (I'm not
sure it matters which end you look through, but with the 85/1.8 the image circle
is larger if you look through from the rear--magnification seems the same). A
faster lens will let you see more of the image. You can experiment with
different focal lengths to see which gives the best combination of magnification
and field of view. A lens is a far better loupe than those cheap $5-20 loupes
you find in camera shops.
As for magnification, a standard 4x loupe gives you full coverage of a frame of
35mm film, and I believe the square 6x loupes are supposed to give full coverage
of a 6x6cm frame. The 4x in any case is usually sufficient for picking out most
sharp images or for examining composition, but to really see sharpness and grain
you need to go to 8x, which with 35mm film will only show part of the frame.
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
