<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Kentmere Pan 400 35mm Film Review	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.myfavouritelens.com/kentmere-400-35mm-film-review/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.myfavouritelens.com/kentmere-400-35mm-film-review/</link>
	<description>Vintage Lens and Film Photography Information, Inspiration, and Creation</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2026 17:51:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Lee		</title>
		<link>https://www.myfavouritelens.com/kentmere-400-35mm-film-review/#comment-24283</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lee]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2026 21:42:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.myfavouritelens.com/?p=16360#comment-24283</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.myfavouritelens.com/kentmere-400-35mm-film-review/#comment-24254&quot;&gt;Cliff Bown&lt;/a&gt;.

I definitely agree they deserve better than to be dismissed as &#039;beginner&#039; film. Not that that would be a bad thing though? If it means cheap and easy to use? What&#039;s bad about either of those things? :)

I&#039;ve always got moderate contrast from this 400 one though yes, but got a lot more out of &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.myfavouritelens.com/kentmere-pan-100-35mm-film-review/&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=&quot;ugc&quot;&gt;the 100 version&lt;/a&gt;. And more recently the new Kentmere 200 also (which by the way might just be the best ISO 200 monochrome film out there now?)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.myfavouritelens.com/kentmere-400-35mm-film-review/#comment-24254">Cliff Bown</a>.</p>
<p>I definitely agree they deserve better than to be dismissed as &#8216;beginner&#8217; film. Not that that would be a bad thing though? If it means cheap and easy to use? What&#8217;s bad about either of those things? 🙂</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve always got moderate contrast from this 400 one though yes, but got a lot more out of <a href="https://www.myfavouritelens.com/kentmere-pan-100-35mm-film-review/" target="_blank" rel="ugc">the 100 version</a>. And more recently the new Kentmere 200 also (which by the way might just be the best ISO 200 monochrome film out there now?)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Cliff Bown		</title>
		<link>https://www.myfavouritelens.com/kentmere-400-35mm-film-review/#comment-24254</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cliff Bown]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Feb 2026 14:48:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.myfavouritelens.com/?p=16360#comment-24254</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Kentmere films are often described as &quot;beginner&quot; films but they are better than that, especially if you prefer a moderate level of contrast]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kentmere films are often described as &#8220;beginner&#8221; films but they are better than that, especially if you prefer a moderate level of contrast</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Lee		</title>
		<link>https://www.myfavouritelens.com/kentmere-400-35mm-film-review/#comment-20042</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lee]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Feb 2025 00:32:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.myfavouritelens.com/?p=16360#comment-20042</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.myfavouritelens.com/kentmere-400-35mm-film-review/#comment-20006&quot;&gt;Mike&lt;/a&gt;.

Yeah, I don&#039;t know anymore tbh Mike. One day I read that Rollei and Agfa APX are this Kentmere and Ilford Pan 400 &lt;em&gt;might&lt;/em&gt; be too, another day I read that they aren&#039;t. I&#039;ve given up trying to give a definitive opinion either way. :)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.myfavouritelens.com/kentmere-400-35mm-film-review/#comment-20006">Mike</a>.</p>
<p>Yeah, I don&#8217;t know anymore tbh Mike. One day I read that Rollei and Agfa APX are this Kentmere and Ilford Pan 400 <em>might</em> be too, another day I read that they aren&#8217;t. I&#8217;ve given up trying to give a definitive opinion either way. 🙂</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Mike		</title>
		<link>https://www.myfavouritelens.com/kentmere-400-35mm-film-review/#comment-20006</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2025 10:37:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.myfavouritelens.com/?p=16360#comment-20006</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Strange. 400 Kenrmere, Ilford and Rollei are are the same film]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Strange. 400 Kenrmere, Ilford and Rollei are are the same film</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!--
Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: https://www.boldgrid.com/w3-total-cache/?utm_source=w3tc&utm_medium=footer_comment&utm_campaign=free_plugin

Page Caching using Disk: Enhanced 

Served from: www.myfavouritelens.com @ 2026-07-13 00:23:25 by W3 Total Cache
-->