Index:
Caltar Lenses
Dagor Lenses
Elements and Groups
Fujinon LF lenses
Lens Names
Simple trick to estimate bellows
Ultrawide 65mm Lenses
Related Local Links:
Center Filters (homebrew..)
Chart of Lenses by Name, Type, Mfger
Elements - A few go a long way..
Kodak Ektar Lenses
Large Format New Lenses for 8x10 and 11x14 by Michael Davis
Lens Boards - Homebrew Tips
Optical Glass Manufacturers
Related Links:
Dr. Optic Lenses [8/2002]
Fuji LF Lenses Gallery pages [7/2001]
LF Lens Kits
LF Lens Tutorial (B&H;)
LF Lenses Chat
Nikkor Lenses for LF Cameras [4/2001]
Thanks to Clive Warren for suggesting these Links [7/2001]:
Large Format Discussion Group
Large Format Mailing List
Large Format Photography (F/32 Pages)
Notes:
[Ed. note: just a note about the older uncoated lenses...]
From Modern Photography, November 1980, p. 18, View from Kramer column:
My protars are beautiful, but they are anything but crisp. Their contrast
is less than impressive, and having the lens coated (as I have) doesn't
help much. Coating has no effect in the scattering of light within the
glass. It cuts down on reflections between air spaced elements, but the
lower contrast of old lenses is a result mostly of poor scattering
characteristics due to the qualities of the old optical glasses. Generally
they [older lenses] are softer and flarier than modern lenses.
| Good Old MF and LF Lenses are Still Good Lenses... |
|---|
| But for monochrome, at f/8 and below (for MF) or at f/16 and below (for LF), there is likely to be no discernible difference in performance between a good old lens, and a good, modern lens in any reasonable focal length. |
From: spoefish@mindspring.com (Stephen Poe) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: Which polaroid camera lenses can be used for 4x5? MF? Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 I have pretty good luck using the 127 Raptar from a Polaroid on 4x5 - it does not gove you a lot of room, but at f/16 there is some slight movement - and the price is right. I just sold one of the 2 I have for $75. I don't think the lens is quite as sharp as the 127 Ektar which was widely used by 4x5 press photogs. Don't know why, but most of the lenses I have seen on Polaroids have been in excellent shape or better - maybe they did not get used very much. Stephen Poe >Greetings Folks, > >I would like to learn more about the possibility of using some polaroid >camera lenses for 4x5 and medium format photography, where many possible >lenses and cameras exist with potentially interesting coverage at low >cost, due to low demand for many of these older polaroid cameras. > >Can anyone suggest a source of info on using older polaroid lenses on 4x5? > >I have seen a variety of ektar lenses in shutters, of various focal >lengths, listed for polaroid cameras of various orphaned types at low prices. >Has anyone used these lenses for 4x5? Reportedly, the lenses are at >least good enough to use with the 665P/N and similar film types which >have moderately high resolution (100 lpm). The lenses have shutters and >even flash synch, assuming you are willing to kill the camera to get its >lens ;-) > >Even if the coverage is marginal for 4x5, I would be interested in use on >6x6 in a homebrew screw thread lens design... > >Thanks for any pointers and advice - regards to all - bobm > >-- >* Robert Monaghan POB752182 Dallas Tx 75275-2182 rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu *
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: Lenses from Polaroid 110 models Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 >Does anyone know the difference between the various lenses fitted to the >Polaroid 110 models. >I have seen 127f4.7 Raptar, 127f4.7 Ysarex and 127f4.7 Ennar. >Are these all the same lens, or is any better than the other? >Will they cover 4x5 or are they intended for 3x4 (the Polaroid film >dimensions). >Please copy reply to email. These are all standard Tessar typs. Polaroid even used some Kodak Ektars. The Ektar would be the best of the bunch but other than that they are probably a toss up, all are made by respectible companies. None of these lenses is intended for 4x5 but will cover it when stopped down to f/16 or smaller. --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, Ca. dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) From: Steven T Koontz skoontz@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Which polaroid camera lenses can be used for 4x5? MF? >even if 4x5 is too much of a stretch, as your >shared experience indicates... another thought, I have used this lens for 4X5 close up work and it covers OK close in. have fun! should work great on 6X6. shot some 3 1/4-4 1/4 polaroids today and they look fine (imagine that...) see ya... skoontz@mindspring.com
From: Uffe Nygren uffe@reklambilder.se Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: For Sale:Nikon 450mm Large Format Lens Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 NIKKOR-M 450mm f9 NEW lens in Copal 3 shutter mounted on Sinar board. Mint, of course. Available fYs 9-128. Image circle @ f22 is 440mm, i.e. will cover 10 x 12" film. That gives lots of camera movements working with 8x10" format... Shutter speeds 1sec - 1/125sec+T & B. Uffe Nygren Bondegatan 16 116 33 Stockholm SWEDEN Phone +46 8 642 70 55 E-Mail uffe@reklambilder.se
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu Hi The Ektar 101mm lens can be found in some Kodak 620 Tourest cameras made in the early 50's. The best way to ID them is that Ektars came with Kodak Synchro-Rapid 800 shutters. These are the same shutters used on the 4x5 Graphic cameras. Usually the 4x5 have the 127 lens. The 101 will be a little on the wide side. I have found 127 lenses on Kodak 616 folder made in the mid 40's. I would say only 10% of these cameras came with the Ektar lens. I find about 3 to 4 good folders a year going to about 10 to 15 shows. One will have a Ektar lens. None of the cameras will be over $25. The average will be $15. Larry
From: "Steve Shapiro" sgshiya@redshift.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: Who buys/uses this stuff? Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 John, My last conversation with Al Holsten at Gassers was illuminating when talking about the relative value for a Schneider Super Angulon 120mm f-5.6 that could stop down to 128. He aid, "Why not use a pin-hold camera?" He explained about the light distortion at such fine f-stops and when the Group f-64 began, lenses and film were by nomeans as fine and accurate as they are today. If you're going into long exposures, fine detail, look at the fine wood prices at your locak lumber company. Joke" It took me three months to locate Jeckle Enterprises to find box wood for my wooden portfolio cases. And, it ain't cheep. Then, check out some of the Web sites about pin-hole cameras. Easy search will turn up some, I'm sure. I don't havethe nimble fingers to leavethis message and retrieve from my favorites list for you, but they're out there. Then, listen to what some of these guys say about number of exposures we get with LF Cameras, and you can beat that with a pin-hole camera. So, get out the old slide rule and drill a hole in a piece of kiln dried ash to match the 252mm for an 8X10 negative and for umpty-jump dollars, zig-zag years of engineering school, you too can drill a 4mm hole. Without a drill press, too, I bet. Oh, how far back to you place the film back? steveshapiro@hotmail.com John Stewart wrote... >This is from the marketplace: > >FS: Deluxe Pinhole 4x5 Camera - Robert Rigby, handmade in England of natural >wood, takes regular 4x5 sheet film holders, and Polaroid 545 & 405. >Approximately 50mm focal length, F166 (one stop from f128) gives excellent >exposures even on transparency film. Mint condition, $135. > > > >Who spends $100+ for a pinhole camera? Maybe I'm missing out on a trend, but >I just do not get it. Or maybe everyone else has more money than I do... > > >radiojon@means.net John >
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net Subject: [Rollei] JSK Super Angulon Ancestry Peter Kotsinadelis wrote: > Also, is the Super Angulon Schneider really a Zeiss copied > modified design? Anyone know? Well, yes and no. It probably would be safer to call it a modified Wild design. Ludwig Bertele was the enfant terrible of Zeiss; he was brought over from Ernemann in the Zeiss Ikon merger and produced the epic Sonnar and Biogon designs. He left Zeiss in '40 to work for Steinheil, but continued to do contract work for Zeiss, as well, during the War, having, at one time, four offices, one in Munich at a small Zeiss factory there, another in Munich at Steinheil, a third at Dresden at Zeiss Ikon, and a fourth at Jena at the principal Carl Zeiss works. After the end of the War, Bertele went to work for the small Swiss photogrammetric firm of Wild-Heerbrugg, the future saviours of Leica. While there, Bertele produced a fine aerial photographic lens, the Aviogon, based on the work of the Russian Roosinov. Zeiss then contracted with Wild for Bertele to return to Zeiss, where he produced the Postwar 35mm and 21mm Biogons, closely based on the design of the Aviogon. Bertele was so pleased with the 21mm lens that he claimed it was to photography 'as the jet engine is to aviation and penicillin to medicine'. JSK took this Biogon design and its permutations as calculated by Bertele and produced the first family of Super Angulon lenses in the middle 1950's. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From: "Jean-Christophe Barnoud" barnoud@worldnet.net Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: Auxiallry Shutter Idea Date: 22 Feb 1998 Fitting a shutter in front of the lens has been done in many circumstances: a/ historically, one can find many such examples : drop shutters, rotary shutters, roller-blind shutters, single or double flap shutters, different kinds of leaf shutters, I surely forget to name some. b/ in the late seventies to early eighties one could stil buy new leaf shutters made to be fitted to the front of a view camera lens (Luc or Gitzo). Those were generally attached to the lens by 3 equally spaced radial screws. c/ The Minox (subminiature) still uses a front shutter. Though it does work, it has not been a lasting success for it has some drawbacks that can be annoying or not depending on the circumstances in which you operate : a/ Changing lenses supposes either : 1/ switching the shutter from one lens to the other which is neither easy nor fast or 2/ having one shutter for each lens (bulky) b/ Having the shutter in font of the lens has the blades (supposing a leaf shutter) exposed to dust, rain and other agressions. Teflon coated blades solve part of this problem. One could also imagine screwing a filter on the front lens cell thread. I do not feel much at ease with the effects of a filter this far away front the front lens. c/ You need a huge shutter otherwise you get vignetting (#3, 4 or 5). The problem is exactly the same as with a behind the lens shutter like the Sinar/Copal shutters : size will not be very different. As a matter of fact a Sinar shutter would be a good (though expensive) candidate for most lenses requiring a huge opening. As an example, a 210 f/5.6 Boyer Saphir (Tessar like) fits at the front of a Compound 4 (52 mm max aperture). An Angulon 120 fits in front of a Compound 5 (64.5mm max aperture). Sizes should be about the same with the shutter in front of the lens. d/ When a shutter is mounted in front or behind the lens, you encounter a "vignetting" problem as the corners are uncovered after the center and covered again before the center. When the efficiency of the shutter decreases (short exposure times, huge area to uncover) this added to the lens own "vignetting" may well become unacceptable especially with reversal film. Summary : possible, has been done, works better for long indoor exposures where the lens stays on the camera or as an auxiliary shutter (with flash for example). Jean-Christophe Steve vise@tlxnet.net a Tcrit > I was wondering - since most of the older lenses take a 40.5mm filter - > why can a shutter be made that screws on to the front of a barrell > lens?Do you suppose it would affect the sharpness of the lens? > > steve
From: Kerry Thalmann K.Thalmann@worldnet.att.net Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Fuji Lenses at Badger Graphics (was:Thoughts on current 135's) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 > Sorry, I based the selling price of the Schneider based on their retail > price listed on their web page, as I didn't have a Shutterbug handy. I > figured what I thought a normal discount would be. So, the Schneider > sells for $1269. I think the Fujinon cost approximately $569 (Badger > Graphics 1-800-558-5350). That's still a $700 dollar difference. Sorry > for the mistake. I believe that the Fujinon 450mm is in the $600's and > the 600mm is in the $1300's, although you'd have to call to be sure. Based on the information above, I gave Badger Graphics a call to check prices and availability on some Fuji large format lenses. Given my affinity for small lenses with big coverage, here's a list of what I asked about and the prices I was quoted: 240mm F9 Fujinon A - $655 300mm F8.5 Fujinon C - $625 450mm f12.5 Fujinon C - $860 600mm f11.5 Fujinon C - $1325 Those are prices for NEW lenses imported directly from Japan by Badger Graphics. Also, they had all four of those lenses in stock at the time of my call. They also have several other Fuji lenses in stock, and they calim to be able to get anything Fuji makes directly from the factory within about one week. I've never bought anything from Badger Graphics before, and have never even talked to them before today, so I am just passing this information along to anybody who may be looking for a good deal on Fuji large format lenses. I am absoluteley amazed by these prices. They are lower then the typical Shutterbug prices for used Fuji lenses and hundreds of dollars less than any new prices I have seen listed in Shutterbug over the last several years. Fuji makes some great large format lenses, many that have no counterparts from the other current manufacturers. At these prices, they are tremendous bargains. The exchange rate is very favorable these days, and that's what makes such low prices possible. Of course, the exchange rate fluctuates daily, so these prices are subject to change at anytime. Thanks to Peter for letting me know about this source of large format lens bargains. Hopefully this information will help somebody else looking for a new Fuji lens. Badger Graphics has a web site at: http://www.badgergraphic.com/ but, unfortunately, they don't have prices or specs online for the Fuji lenses. Still, it's a nice site featuring lots of other top of the line large format gear. Kerry
From: Kerry Thalmann K.Thalmann@worldnet.att.net Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format Subject: Re: Fuji Lenses at Badger Graphics (was:Thoughts on current 135's) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 Kerry Thalmann wrote: > 240mm F9 Fujinon A - $655 > 300mm F8.5 Fujinon C - $625 > 450mm f12.5 Fujinon C - $860 > 600mm f11.5 Fujinon C - $1325 I posted these prices yesterday, and there is an error in the price for 600mm lens, the correct price is $1385. Sorry. I have now obtained the Badger Graphic prices for the entire Fuji product line and am posting them here for eveyone's benefit. Please note: Other than as an about to be satisfied (hopefully) customer I have no connection with Badger Graphic. I will receive no financial benefit for posting this information. I just thought others might find it useful. This infomation is accurate as of this morning (3/31/98) and is subject to change. It is also subject to typos on my part, so it is best to call Badger Graphic to confirm any prices. Kerry Prices for new Fuji Lenses from Badger Graphic (1-800-558-5350): SWD Series: 65mm f5.6 - $969 75mm f5.6 - $1095 90mm f5.6 - $1145 SW Series: 90mm f8 - $689 105mm f8 - $899 125mm f8 - $995 CM-W Series: 105mm f5.6 - $549 125mm f5.6 - $559 135mm f5.6 - $579 150mm f5.6 - $569 180mm f5.6 - $659 210mm f5.6 - $715 250mm f6.3 - $810 300mm f5.6 - $1375 360mm f6.5 - $1690 450mm f8 - $1860 C Series: 300mm f8.5 - $625 450mm f12.5 - $860 600mm f11.5 - $1385 A Series 180mm f9 - $600 240mm f9 - $655 T Series: 300mm f8 - $735 400mm f8 - $949 600mm f12 - $1375 SF Series: 180mm f5.6 - $580 250mm f5.6 - $675
From: "Christopher M. Perez" chrisper@vnd.tek.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Fuji Lenses at Badger Graphics
135's) Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998
I threw together a quick Fuji lens spec/price list - HTML at:
FUJI Lenses
http://swmerc.rain.com/~chris/fuji.html [down see note below]
to keep a record of information for myself. Perhaps it'll be useful to
others as well? My interest in LF lenses tends toward the v.light and
portable. The boat anchors that pass for symmetrical lens designs these
days aren't very attractive to me.
Best Regards,
Christopher M Perez, Engineer IV phone - (503) 627-4767
Tektronix, Inc., Video Network Displays (VND) fax - (503) 627-1137
PO Box 500, MS 58-850, Beaverton, OR 97077
Email - Christopher.M.Perez@TEK.COM
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001
From: XKAES@aol.com
To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: dead link
FYI,
on the list of links the current FUJI large format lens link is dead
(http://swmerc.rain.com/~chris/fuji.html). But here is one that works:
THE WORLD'S MOST
COMPLETE FUJINON LARGE FORMAT LENS LIST
Thanks for your great web pages.
From: dionj@netcom.com (Dion Johnson)
Subject: Re: Center Filters for 90mm on 4X5?
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998
You can sometimes find the center filters for aerial cameras
at low prices. The center weighted filter for the B&L; Metrogon
6" lens is about 97mm in diameter (the glass part). Might do
the job...
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
[1] Re: Image Circles
Date: Sun May 03 1998
dfstein@ix.netcom.com (David F. Stein) wrote:
>What are the minmum image circles needed to cover 2x3, 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 >formats. > >Sincerely,
Its the diagonal of the format. Except for 2-1/4x3-1/4 the actual
film size is somewhat smaller than the nominal size so the diagonal is
a bit less.
For 2-1/4 X 3-1/4= 102mm; for 4x5= 152mm; for 5x7= 210mm for 8x10=
302mm.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: Peter De Smidt pdesmidt@fdldotnet.com
[1] Re: Exposure compensation chart for bellows extension
Date: Wed May 06 1998
David Greene wrote: > > Can anyone tell me is there such a thing as a simple exposure compensation > chart for bellows extension on a 4X5 camera? > > David Greene > dg@gsburl.com
Sure, at least I have one. Just a minute..rummage, rummage,
rummage...Here it is. Btw the formula is Distance equals (focal lenth x
Effective Focal lenth)/F#
FL Lens--> 125mm 135 180 210 240 300 450 +1/3stop 140mm 151 202 236 269 337 505 <--Bellows Extension in mm +1/2 149 161 214 250 285 357 535 +2/3 158 170 227 265 302 378 567 +1 177 191 255 297 339 424 636 +1 1/3 198 214 286 333 381 476 714 +1 1/2 210 227 303 353 404 505 757 +1 2/3 223 241 321 373 428 535 802 +2 250 270 360 420 480 600 900
Regards,
Peter De Smidt
Oops. I made a mistake. The formula should be
D=[FL(EFS)]/FS
Where D = distance, FL = Focal Length, EFS = Effective F-stop, and FS =
F stop.
To make things easy. Make the FS=1. This gives us Distance (mm)=Focal
lenth X Effective F-stop.
To use the formula, you need to know the precise series of F-numbers
1 1.122 i.e. + 1/3 1.189 1/2 1.260 2/3 1.414 1 1.587 1 1/3 1.682 1 1/2 1.782 1 2/3 2 2 2.245 2 1/3 2.378 2 1/2 2.520 2 2/3 2.828 3 3.175 3 1/3 3.364 3 1/2
Simply plug in the focal lenth of the lens, and use the f number
according to the amount of compensation in question as the Effective F
Stop.
For example, Consider a 90mm lens. At what extension do you
have to start compensating? Well, +1/3 means use EFS 1.122, so
we get (90mm)(1.122)= 101mm. So, when using a 90mm lens and the bellows
extenion (roughly lens center plane to front of ground glass) is 101mm,
open the aperature up 1/3 stop.
Regards,
Peter De Smidt
Actually theres a simpler method I use that hardly requires a
formula!! I forgot where I heard it.
A simple example:
210mm lens --
1) with bellows of extension 21 cm, assume f21.
2) with bellows of extension 42 cm assume f42.
3) The difference between f stops is the factor,
Iin this case 2 stops.,
4) Another way of stating it is these exposures are equivalent:
1) with bellows extension of 21 cm, use f42.
2) with bellows extension of 42 cm use f21.
Notice this corresponds with the table below!!
These are suggested starting points:
100mm - 4 inches ---> f4
135mm - 5.5 inches ---> f 5.6
150mm - 16 cm ---> f16
200mm - 8 inches --> f8
Yes, this method is less exact, but needs no complicated formula.
Actually it's just as exact if you know fractional f stops.
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Web Addresses for LF lense manufacturers?
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999
pmbdlrsvcs@aol.com (Pmbdlrsvcs) wrote:
>I have Schneideroptics.com, but can not find Nikkor, Fuji, (have checked >www.fujifilm.com) or Rodenstock. Any help? > >Thanks, Peter
No other company has anything like Schneider's page. Nikon and Fuji
both have web sites with extensive, beautiful, slow-loading graphics
but no mention whatever of large-format lenses.
Rodenstock of America has a site at:
http://www.rodenstockoptics.com/
with rudimentary information on the lens line. A very little
additional information is available from the German site at:
http://www.rodenstockoptics.de/pg3.html
A call to HP Marketing will get you full catalogue infomation.
Despite the heat Bob Saloman takes here he does a very good job
representing the companies with HP.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "peter" pkessler@odn.de
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Web Addresses for LF lense manufacturers?
Date: 2 Feb 1999
Hi Peter,
here is the website from Rodenstock
http://www.rodenstock.de
and from
Nikon
http://www.klt.co.jp/Nikon/
Peter
Bob,
For those who don't know you well and understand where you are coming
from I want to add a word to this discussion.
First I know you from your many contributions to the CompuServe
PhotoForum, over many years. In my estimate your contributions have been
just that - real contributions that increased my knowledge and solved
problems for myself and others. I celebrate the time you spend
communicating. It is a credit to you and to the companies you represent.
Now I regret to see you getting beat up by those on the mythic quest for
the "best" lens, those who are unwilling to do the work of testing
themselves. I have done quite a bit of testing. I've made large
precision optics. I've built and modifed professional cameras, specified
and purchased multi-million dollar imaging systems. From long experience
I strongly endorse your statements below.
Lenses, and cameras have different qualities. I know that a lens I
really like - in terms of the results I get with it - would be quite
disliked by others with a different photographic intent. The qualities
that a lens-camera-photographer system conveys in the final image can
only partially and incompletely be conveyed by lens resolution and MTF
tests. At best the test show if the lens is a good possibility. A real
test under working conditions is the only thing that will tell.
For example, in my personal work low flare is of paramount importance.
Even modern lenses vary noticeably in how they handle extreme flare,
especially wide angles. Published specifications only relate indirectly
the actual performance in this area. Tests conducted by someone else are
unlikely to address my specific issues.
For those who do want to educate themselves about the meaning of MTF
tests and Rodenstock lenses, the booklets you mention elsewhere are
among the best references available. (I have the one on the Sironar and
Grandagon series that is now many years old.)
I urge those reading these publications and seeking data on lens
performance from you and others to frame specific questions about the
lens perfomance qualities they are seeking. What will differences in
resolution, color rendering, field, flare, illumination distribution,
size, weight etc. contribute to the final images? How important are
those qualities and differences? If quantifiable - what is the measure
of those qualites or differences?
Information and tests results are only relevant in the light of these
photographer-asked questions. In the absence of these questions it is
easy to endlessly go in circles about which lens is "best". Answer the
questions and it becomes amazingly easy to assemble the required
information, perform a deciding test where needed and make a confident
lens selection. (Same rules apply to buying high-end imaging systems!)
Bob - don't let the crabbies on the 'net get to you. Keep smiling and
keep sharing your wonderful wealth of knowledge and wisdom with all of
us.
Cheers!
Bill Peters
Calgary, Canada
Bob Salomon wrote:
> There are too many problems with our posting. The most obvious being a world > of pessimists and know betters who would immediately claim a biased or > contrived comparison. > > If you want to see the differences there are several dealers who rent the > lenses. The best test and the only valid one for you is to compare yourself > under your shooting conditions with your shooting techniques. > > A comparison any other way is pretty much meaningless as you are the one who > has to see the benefit Not me, not someone else who has never done the > comparison. Your comparison is the meaningful one for you. > -- > bobsalomon@mindspring.com hpmarketingcorp.com > HP Marketing Corp. Amazon, Braun, Gepe, Giottos, Heliopan, HP Combi-Plan-T, > Kaiser, KoPho, Linhof, Pro Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar 2000
mick wrote:
> I have a C.P. Goerz Berlin Dagor Series III f6.8 15cm No 310496. Can anyone > tell me the age of this lens, and if it was one of the B&J; versions? > > Mike
On Goerz Serial numbers and dates
Goerz Amer. Optical Co. Serial #'s from
Eddie Bolsetzian (former Goerz Tech.)
Lens #
70001-140935 1902-1903 150000-190170 1903-1905 200941-224267 1906-1908 223775-226630 1908-1909 310001-315734 1911-1914 315735-320000 1914-1918 751240-756909 1927-1937 755300 1934 756910-765730 1937-1945 765730-771199 1945-1948 771200-780169 1948-1954 791500 ~1955 ser iii 61/2 #222788 1910 ser iii 81/4 #222836 1907 14" Dagor #190994 1905 19" dagor #757427 1938 ser iii 480mm #174429 1904 Artar 19" #396635 1922 artar 30" #751030 1926 first red dot artar #779612 oct 1953
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Dagor Lenses
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999
I have these numbers but don't think even the early ones apply to
German made lenses.
Serial number lists are hard to find for many well known brands. It
was usually not information which was meant to be public and, for many
brands, is probably lost now. I would love to find even partial
serial number lists for Goerz Germany or Wollensak or Bausch & Lomb.
Schneider has a complete list of numbers by year posted on the
Schneider of America web site: http://www.schneideroptics.com
In a recent thread Bob Salomon very kindly offered to identify
Rodenstock lenses over the phone but says that Rodenstock doesn't want
to publish their serial number lists. Unhappily, this is more typical
of industry policy than Schneider.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
you wrote:
> When looking at the literature for lenses, you sometimes are given information > on the number of elements / number of groups the lense has. What is the > significance of knowing this? Things being equal ( eg. same focal length, > max. aperature, type of glass, etc. ) do more elements or more groups make the > lense better? ( or is the manufacturer just giving us information that tells us > how much correction is needed to make it an acceptable lense ?) > > Thanks.
There is some significance. The simplest lens which can be corrected for
all the main aberrations is a three element lens. Adding elements makes it
easier for the designer to make the corrections. They also allow correction
of the residual errors which remain after the largest ones are eliminated.
More elements do not necessarily mean a better lens, the skill of the
designer is very important as well as the accuracy with with the design is
brought to reality in manufacture.
In some cases the number of elements and groups or the name of the
prototype lens gives some idea of what the lens characteristics are. Groups
BTW means ususally lens elements which are cemented together. The cemented
interface has different characteristics than an air-space between the
elements.
As an example take two very widely used lens types, the Planar and the
Plasmat. Both have six glass elements in four groups. The difference is in
the arrangement of the groups. The Planar has a positive element at front
and back and a negative group next to the diaphragm which consists of two
cemented lenses. This is the prototype of nearly all f/2 or faster lenses
used on 35mm and 6x6 cameras. It has excellent correction but covers only a
rather narrow image circle.
The Plasmat OTOH has the cemented pair at the front and rear and a
negative lens with air spaces on both sides next to the stop. The Plasmat
type is good to about f/5 but covers a wide angle, 50% to double what a
Planar covers. So one finds a lot of Planar types on small and medium
format cameras and a lot of Plasmats on larger format cameras where the
extra coverage allows the relative postion of film and lens to be varied to
achieve some special effects.
At some level the more complex lens _will_ perform better than the
simpler one an example is the three element Triplet compared to the Tessar
which has one additional element. Tessars have better image quality at
wider angles and at larger stops than triplets do, some other things being
equal.
The recent use of aspherical surfaces in some lenses has allowed
simplification of the lens for the same performance. An aspherical surface
can always be duplicated by two or more spherical lenses, the question
becomes one of economics of manufacture. Also, modern glass types have
allowed the simplification of lenses for equal performance.
I don't know how to answer the question about how well corrected the lens
must be in any really simple way other than to say it must be good enough
to produce a percievably sharp image over the format its expected to cover.
A lens which was good enough for a large box camera of the past, where the
negatives were contact printed, would hardly be acceptable today. Nor would
it have been acceptable for a high quality camera of its time. Yet, a great
many entirely satisfactory pictures were made with such cameras simply
because expected quality was delivered.
There certainly are objective measurements for lens performance, in fact
they are now quite sophisticated but perhaps not so useful outside of the
design and quality control procedures.
I hope this is responsive to your question and makes some sense.
The best book on the essentials of photographic lenes I know is long out
of print although I believe there may be a new edition of it available.
It is:
_Lenses in Photography: the practical guide of optics for photographers_
Rudolph Kingslake, 1951, Garden City Books. I think there is a re-issue by
The Silver Pixel Press who now published books for Kodak.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
>I am searching for a 65mm 4x5 lens which will fully cover >4x5, with some movements, and which does not produce a "hot >spot" effect requiring a filter.
The f/4.5 and f/5.6 have less fall-off due to their designs, however, a
center filter is required for even coverage. With the exception of the
72mm SA XL, movements are limited to 0.2" for the f/4.5 and f/5.6 lenses,
and nearly none for the slow lenses.
>Does anyone use a 65mm lens with which you are totally happy.
Yes... but it's on a medium format camera, and has some fall-off.
72 & 65 lens specs:
FL f/# Circle Deg Model E/G Shutter 72 5.6 226 115 Schneider Super Angulon XL 8/4 0 65 4.5 170 105 Calumet Caltar II 8/4 0 65 4.5 170 105 Docter Docter WA 8/4 1 65 4 170 105 Nikkor SW 7/4 0 65 4.5 170 105 Rodenstock Grandagon 8/4 0 65 4.5 170 105 Rodenstock Grandagon N 8/4 0 65 5.6 170 105 Schneider Super Angulon 8/4 0 65 4.5 170 105 Sinar Sinaron W n.a. 0 65 5.6 169 105 Fujinon SWD 8/6 0 65 5.6 169 105 Fujinon SWDS 8/6 0 65 8 155 100 Calumet Caltar WII n.a. n.a. 65 8 155 100 Fujinon SW 6/6 0 65 8 155 100 Ilex Acugon 6/4 0 65 8 155 100 Schneider Super Angulon 6/4 0 65 7 152 100 Horseman Super n.a. n.a. 65 6.8 115 83 Schneider Angulon 6/2 n.a.
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999
From: Mitchell P. Warner indepth@kuentos.guam.net
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: Horseman SW 612
You can get full information, including image circle size of a specific
lens, and the image circle required to fit a specific format at:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/
go to SEARCH and
type in LARGE FORMAT
then go to LARGE FORMAT CONTENTS
then: LARGE FORMAT LENSES
NOTE: The original Q was about 45mm Apo-Grandagon, NOT the 45XL. The XL has
a significantly larger image circle to accomodate the 6x12 format and some
movements.
From: "C. W. Dean" cwdean@erols.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Barrel & Process Lenses
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999
Shawn Hedvat wrote:
> Hi All, > > I am sure this question has been asked before but I couldn't find a faq > so here it goes: > > What about all these shutter less lenses on eBay, are they usable at > all? Can they be rigged with a shutter and is it worth the effort? I > need a 210 mm for around $100 to do portraits in 4x5 and was wondering > if they might be a way to go. > Thanks > Shawn > PS. What is a Packard shutter?
Think of a Packard Shutter as the focal plane shutter on a 35 mm camera,
it stays with the camera and you mount various barrel lenses in front of
it. Actually, 35 mm lenses could be called barrel lenses as they have no
shutters. The Packard is an air driven shutter which uses an air bulb
and tubing to fire the shutter. They are still available new and come
with or without modern strobe synchronization. It takes some
fabrication to fit one to a view camera, cheapest way is to do it
yourself. This link will lead you to some notes I have made on
Packards, I'll leave it on the server for about 3 weeks:
http://users.erols.com/cwdean/packard.htm
--
Best regards & Good Photography!
C. W. Dean
Practicing Professional Photography since 1972
Further info: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/seadub/
Photography Samples: http://www.erols.com/cwdean/home.htm
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999
From: todd todd_belcher@bc.sympatico.ca
Subject: Re: [Rollei] xenotar question
Andre,
The Xenotar 3.5/135 mm is the same formula as that found on the Rolleis.
The image circle is 150 mm at f22, which gives no movement on 4 x 5 and
will probably have a bit vignetting towards the corners. This lens was
recommended for use on 6 x 9 format by Linhof, not 4 x 5. The Symmar
5.6/135 mm was the recommended lens for use on 4 x 5 with an image cirle of
190 mm (this allowed some movements) or the Xenotar 2.8/150 mm with an
image circle of 160 mm (this allowed no movements but would cover without
vignetting).
Todd
you wrote:
>Please excuse my ignorance, but what exactly do all the german names in >front of lenses mean ie; Xenotar, Planar, Tessar, Biogon, Hologon, Distagon >Variogon etc... I assume that they say something about the lenses >design/the number of elements etc?? Could someone please enlighten me on >this? Thanks...
Greek or Latin word parts stuck together. I am not sure of the origen of
"ar" or "tar" "gon" is from angle as in polygon. Xeno is Greek for
stranger, host, foreigner, can't guess at this. Schneider liked names
beginning with Xen (Xenon, Xenar, Xenogon, Xenotar) perhaps just an
extension with no meaning.
Planar, has a flat field; Tessar, has four parts (elements); Biogon,
lifelike (wide angle lens); Hologon, the whole image (very wide angle);
Distagon, image appears at a distance (fish eye wideangle); Variogon,
variable angle (a zoom lens).
Many lenses do not follow this pattern as with Goerz. Dagor, Dopple
Anastigmat Goerz, etc.
Some companies just came up with names they liked and used them for all
their lenses e.g. Wollensak "Raptar" (fast lens) or their old trade-name
"Velostigmat" (fast anastigmat). Kodak Ektar (Eastman Kodak + tar) or
Bausch and Lomb "Baltar" (B and A + tar). and on it goes.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999
From: "Carl Wegerer, III" wegerer@flash.net
To: Koni-Omega Mailing List koni-omega@snoopy.cmagic.com
Subject: [KOML] Schneider technical data
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Zeiss Apo-Tessar 90cm lens
you wrote:
>> >> A friend of mine has an enormously heavy uncoated lens (for enlarging it >> >> seems) with the following markings:Carl Zeiss Jena Nr. 2747916 >> >> Apo-Tessar 1:9 f=90cm >> >It might be intended for a very large format copy camera, as used in the >> >graphic arts business.... > >Hi Rollei fans! > > I remember when I had my photo color print business, buying some surplus >items from a near-by graphic arts business and subsequently having a tour of >the shop. At the time the large cameras for at least 20" by 24" negatives were >the equipment of the day. I suppose this is changing rapidly to digital. > > If anyone on the list has any first hand experience with today's printing >industry, I, and perhaps others, would enjoy hearing about it. > > Cheers, > > Rich Lahrson > tripspud@wenet.net
A great many process cameras have been retired. I am afraid most of them
wind up as scrap. This has put a very large number of process lenses on the
market at very low prices. The most common are Apo-Artars but I've seen a
lot of Nikor and other makes also. Mostly post war glass with coatings.
Apo-Tessars seem to be fairly uncommon although they were very widely used
at one time.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: bg174@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Gudzinowicz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Long focal lengths: do some designs allow less bellows draw?
Date: 25 Jan 2000
WardCheese wardcheese@aol.com wrote:
>I am fairly new to this endeavor. I have a field camera with >bellows that will extend about 35 cm. Are there lenses >designed to give longer focal lengths without requiring the >full bellows extension? Do you always need 600 mm of bellows >to use a 600 mm lens?
There are tele lenses available for large format which have a flange to
focal plane distance which is shorter than the lens focal length. A list
of "modern" (post-WWII) lenses follows. The "better" lenses are those made
by Nikon, Fujinon and Schneider. Generally, coverage is much less than a
non-tele design. The primary quirk is that the rear nodal point is in
front of the lens, so simple movements such as front tilt or swing require
readjustments.
The image magnification on film is equal to:
M = (total_extension - flange_distance)/(focal_length).
For a 360 lens with a flange to focal plane distance at infinity of 261
mm, the magnification with the bellows and lens extended to 350 mm would be
M = (350-261)/360 = 0.247. So at close focus, the lens would approx cover
a 16x20" area on 4x5" film.
Flange
FL f/# Circle Deg Maker & Model E/G Shutter Distance
300 8 161 30 Congo Tele 4/2 0 190
400 8 199 28 Congo Tele 4/2 1 236
500 9.5 158 18 Congo Tele 4/3 1 287
300 8 212 39 Fujinon T 5/5 0 196
400 8 222 31 Fujinon T 5/5 1 253
600 12 255 24 Fujinon T 5/5 1 384
300 8 212 39 Fujinon TS 5/5 0 199
400 8 222 31 Fujinon TS 5/5 1 260
600 12 255 24 Fujinon TS 5/5 1 384
202 5.6 139 38 Graflex Tele-Optar n.a. n.a. 80.8
254 5.6 175 38 Graflex Tele-Optar n.a. n.a. 101.6
381 5.6 204 30 Graflex Tele-Optar n.a. n.a. 152.4
270 6.3 160 33 Nikkor T ED 5/4 1 188
360 8 213 33 Nikkor T ED 5/4 1 261
500 11 213 24 Nikkor T ED 6/4 1 350
600 9 310 29 Nikkor T ED 6/5 3 409
720 16 215 17 Nikkor T ED 7/4 1 469
800 12 311 22 Nikkor T ED 7/5 3 527
1200 18 316 15 Nikkor T ED 7/5 3 758
500 9.5 213 24 Osaka Tele 4/3 1 287
400 9 252 35 Schneider APO Tele Xenar HM 5/5 3 306
800 11 504 35 Schneider APO Tele Xenar HM 5/5 3 584.9
360 5.5 227 35 Schneider Tele Xenar 4/2 3 214
500 5.5 315 35 Schneider Tele Xenar 4/2 3 312
1000 8 335 19 Schneider Tele Xenar 4/2 3 540
1000 10 312 18 Schneider Tele Xenar 4/2 3 540
180 4 110 35 Schneider Tele-Arton 5/4 1 102.4
180 5.5 110 35 Schneider Tele-Arton 5/4 1 115.5
250 5.5 152 35 Schneider Tele-Arton 5/4 1 158
360 5.5 269 41 Schneider Tele-Arton 5/4 3 209
360 5.5 262 40 Schneider Tele-Arton 5/5 n.a. n.a.
203 4.5 136 37 Wollensak Raptar Tele n.a. n.a. n.a.
254 4.5 170 37 Wollensak Raptar Tele n.a. n.a. n.a.
381 4.5 255 37 Wollensak Raptar Tele n.a. n.a. n.a.
From: alan abrandt@gladstone.uoregon.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Large-Format Resources
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999
Hey Nick, Here's a list of the photo newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace rec.photo.marketplace.35mm rec.photo.marketplace.darkroom rec.photo.marketplace.digital rec.photo.marketplace.medium-format rec.photo.marketplace.large-format rec.photo.equipment.medium-format rec.photo.equipment.large-format rec.photo.equipment.35mm rec.photo.equipment.darkroom rec.photo.equipment.film+labs Photo Dealer Sites: http://www.photomall.com/gevcam.htm GlennEvans Camera http://www.thefstop.com/menu.html The F Stops Here http://www.lensandrepro.com/ Lens and Repro http://www.cameras.com/ E.P. Levine Cameras http://www2.charlottecamera.com Charlotte Camera http://www.business1.com/woodcam/ Woodmere Camera http://www.mpex.com/ Midwest Photo Exchange http://www.bhphotovideo.com B & H Photo Large-Format Info Sites: http://www.ai.sri.com/~luong/photography/lf/ http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html http://www.graflex.org/
I thought of another camera option: A Super Graphic - better than the
Crown or Speed Graphic because it has a rotating back and front swings,
tilt, and rise. It is much heavier construction as well - it's all metal.
Also has a graflock back, which means that the ground glass snaps off and
you can snap on a (cheaper-than regular) roll-film back. Another name for
a graflock back is an international back - my 4x5 has this style of back.
Anyway, You can get Super Graphics for $450 with a lens (a normal-length,
not very good coverage lens) Usually the lenses that come with these are
worth ~$100 - same goes for the crown/speed graphics that sell for ~$300
with a lens.
Other low-priced cameras: (body only) Omega 45D Monorail: ~$250 (like mine) Calumet Grey Monorail: ~$200 (school's) Tachihara/Adorama/Calumet wood field camera: ~$450 (cherrywood, all made by same manufacturer) Burke & James press Camera- cheap/worse version of crown graphic Busch pressman- avoid these too Toyo grey 4x5 field camera (old, rare) ~$450 (drop-bed style)
Lenses - good coverage Nikkor W or SW series $$$ Fuji - W? I think this is
the series - see the F-Stop's here for info Schneider Symmar (Normal
Range) These are uncoated, reasonably priced Schneider Super-Angulon
(wide-Angle) (or older angulons, but less coverage) Rodenstock (wide->
Grandagon, normal->Sinaron) Generally $$$, but older ones OK Calumet
Caltar - usually re-named Rodenstocks, good lense for money
Here's a lens spec chart:
http://www.graflex.org/lenses/lens-spec.html
The spec. "Image Circle Coverage" is what tells you how big a circle of
sharp image the lens projects ont the film plane. A circle that barely
covers 4x5 is about 150mm, which is the diagonal of a 4x5 piece of film,
and is why 150mm is considered a 'normal' lens for 4x5. You probably want
a lens that projects a circle greater than 200mm to have room for
movements. This is why the lenses that come with speed/crown/super
graphics are so cheap - the don't have much extra coverage for movements.
Anyway, enough babbling - I hope this helps, let me know if you need more
info.
Alan
From: Marv Soloff msoloff@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: koni omega?
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999
.....
Just for the halibut - check out two Zeiss lenses - one a 3" 6 element
Planar (no shutter) for $50.00, the other a 75 mm 10 element Biogon
(like the Schneider Super Angulon - no shutter) for $600 offered by C&H;
Sales in Pasadena CA. These are ex-military (DoD)and are probably part
of the "secret lens stash". C&H; has a website at
http://www.candhsales.com - the lenses are identified as follows:
3" Planar - stock #OL9413
75 mm Biogon - stock #OL9412
Happy hunting!
Regards,
Marv
From: tintype@megsinet.com (Peter Mikalajunas)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 90mm Angulons
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999
....
>> I've been thinking about buying a 90mm Angulon or more modern 90mm SA or >> whatever from one of the major lens manufacturers. The price difference is >> substantial, as many of you know. My question is this: I shoot >> landscapes-- is it worth going up to the SA equivalent, or is there a lot of >> good use out of a 90mm Angulon? How limited are you by the image circle? >> Any possibility of getting those flowers in the foreground in focus with the >> mountain in the background with an Angulon?
Lens f/ Image Circle Lens displacements (movement) Anuglon 6.8 154mm 10/8mm SA f/8 216mm 42.5/37mm SA f/5.6 235mm 53.7/47.5mm
There is a long line of Angulons. From previous discussions here, it
is obvious they represent a wide disparity in quality control over the
years. Some have great experiences, others not. The Super Angulon
however is a different story. Most report good experiences with them.
Which you purchase will depend on your budget, style, etc. If you
must purchase an plain angulon, look for a serial number in the 1960's
or later. They seem to be more consistent by then.
For listing of the serial numbers and dates:
http://www.schneideroptics.com/large/serial.htm
A little known lens is the Ilex 90mm, about the price of simple
angulon with as much movement as a SA f/5.6.
>I'm toying with the idea of getting a 90mm SA, and while I was talking to >the guys at midwest, I asked them about the different 90mm SA's out >there. Apparently there is a non-multicoated version that sells used for >about $200-$300 less than the multi-coated version. The clerk (paul) said >that either is a a great lens, but the multicoating will probably help you >more with a wide angle lens than longer lengths because there is more >likelyhood of having a lot of sky or other bright objects in your field of >view with a wide angle lens. >Not really what you asked, but food for thought. > >Sheldon
Directly from the FAQ on the schneider website:
"The first Symmar-S lens to be multi-coated was the Symmar-S 150mm,
serial number 13,014,862 in March 1977. The 210mm followed and then
the rest of the focal lengths were completed by early 1978. The
Super-Angulons were multi-coated in the summer of 1978 beginning with
the f/5.6 series. The f/8 lenses were multi-coated in late '78- early
'79. Apo-Componon HM lenses have been multi-coated since their
introduction in 1986.
If your lens says "multicoating" on it, then it has a multi coating.
If your lens does not have this designation, then it does not have a
multi coating on it. "
Peter Mikalajunas
Photo links
http://www.megsinet.com/tintype
From: RICK KELLY kelly5463@home.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 90mm Angulons
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999
Charles:
I have used a 1957 vintage Angulon for years for 4x5 work,
and have been reasonably satisified. While if you go to the
Schneider web site, they will tell you that the Angulon 90
mm will not completely cover 4x5, in practice, it works
fine, with limited movements. My experience has been that a
lot of movement is not necessary with this short focus lens,
and when stopped down to about F/22, I have never
encountered unacceptable vinyetting. I do landscape work,
both B&W; and Chromes, and it works well for both.
Your mileage may vary if you do types of work which require
extreme shifts or swings or rises. I know of others who are
also happy with the old 90 mm Angulon---one phoned
Schneider, and they told him pretty much what I said--if you
keep movements down (which are usually not that necessary
with this wide a lens or feasible with the close standards
on most cameras at 90 mm), it will work just fine for the
usual applications, B&W; and Color. Check the serial number
on the lens you ware considerinng buying. You can date it to
the year it was made at the Schneider site. I would avoid
anything with a serial number before ~2,500,000, as it
probably has minimal or very soft coating. Anything in the
range above 8,000,000 is really quite new, relatively speaking.
...
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 90mm Angulons
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999
....
That is fascinating! When the Angulon was first put on the market in
1929 Schneider claimed coverage of 102deg at infinity for it. It
actually does have a circle of illumination that big but the circle of
good definition is about the same as for a Dagor at the same stops,
namely a maximum of something less than 90deg at f/45.
A 90mm lens for 4x5 must cover slightly more than 80deg so an
Angulon should do it OK.
Although the Angulon is an f/6.8 lens it was meant to be stopped
down to about f/32 for use. It is very similar to a Dagor in its
characteristics including a fair amount of zonal spherical aberration,
mening it suffers from focus shift.
The elements of an Angulon are reversed in order of power from the
Dagor. That makes it thicker so the outside elements are made larger
to avoid vignetting (works well). The lens is also slightly
asymmetrical to optimize it better for infinity focus.
The biggest problem with Angulons is simply that some of the earlier
ones were dogs (I've got one). Post WW-2 lenses are much less likely
to be bad ones.
....
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: p2macgahan@compuserve.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 90mm Angulons
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999
...
I assume that a reason for the question is to save money, not size
weight or some other aspect. If that is so, the f:8 90mm
Super Angulon (SA) is a good value, compared to the Angulon(A).
It takes a 67mm filter which is more common and is sharp at all
apertures. It is not as bright, but only a little different. It
has quite a bit more coverage ~210mm vs. about 170. Typically, the
A takes a series filter and they are often harder to find.
The benefits come at a price. The A's are available at $1-200, but
you may spend a little more before you solve any filter problems. The
SA's are sometimes at or below $300. Typically, what you find at
that price is in a 00 shutter. These are feasible, but annoying.
They do not have an easy way to hold them open while focussing; they
are small and with big fingers and declining eyesight I dislike them.
If you are as clumsy as I you may also want to know that they are
reputed to be harder to repair.
Despite the foregoing, an SA in a 00 shutter is what I have. It
is a Linhof lens, but when I had them mount it on a board they
sniffed that it wasn't up to current standards. Even so, it
is better than the A. It is also heavier. It is bigger, but not
a BIG lens (e.g., look at a 210mm SA).
Nothing much will change the depth of field you see. It is set
by the f-stop you select. The same f-stop will have about the
same depth with either lens. Between f:8 and f:22 I would expect
the SA to be noticeably sharper than the A. At f:22 and beyond
I doubt you will see much difference.
Naturally, this assumes you compare used lens with used lens. If you
compare with a new SA, I think you get even a little better lens than
mine (S/N 7,6xx,yyy), but it is much more costly.
From: "C. W. Dean" cwdean@erols.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 90mm Angulons
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999
....
Further on the 00 shutter. They are very cramped in a recessed lens
board-- controls are hard to reach and adjust even with little
fingers. They get fragile with age and older ones may need more
professional attention than they are worth. My guess is that a lot of
the ones that show up used in 00 shutters are offered because the owner
is happy with the glass but tired of the shutter........
--
Best regards & Good Photography!
C. W. Dean
Practicing Professional Photography since 1972
Photography Samples: http://www.erols.com/cwdean/home.htm
Date: 28 Jan 2000
From: tpole1@aol.com (T Pole 1)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Need advice on a large format lens on a budget
Jim,
You asked a dangerous question, you probably will get many varying
opinions. One thing to keep in mind all the major manufacturors lenses are
very good, there is just to much competition for them to make a poor lens.
The real question is do you want a 90 or a 75 ? Also will the camera take
these lenses without additional equipment, such as a bag bellows, that you
would have to but new from calumet. But not a big asset drain there. So
how wide do you want to go ? Keep in ind that a 90 is roughly equivalent
to a 28 on 35 and a 75 is about equal to a 24. if you have these two lenes
in 35 mm try them again and then decide which you like best. Go from
there. I have a 90 and only in a very few instances has it not been wide
enough. I would like to have a 75, but I always seems to make it work with
the 90, just a few more tricks. I hope this was of some help.
Good luck.
take care
peace
From: jjames7774@my-deja.com
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: inexpensive WA lens
The 90mm/f6.8 schnieder angulons are very nice lenses. I used one for a
long time and had good results. You can find them all over the place for
$150-$300USD. James
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000
From: "Andrew Cook" awcook@msn.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 4 element tele lenses etc Re: Lens Coatings, not absolutely
essential
The following are all examples of 4 element lenses. Most are currently in
production.
Point and shoot: Olympus Stylus Epic Yashica T4 Super Rollei Prego Micron 35mm rangefinder: Voigtlaender Snapshot-Skopar 25/4 Leica Elmar-M 50/2.8 Leica Elmarit-M 90/2.8 35mm SLR: Zeiss Tessar 45/2.8 for Contax SLR Leica Elmarit-R 90/2.8 Leica Macro-Elmar 100/4 6x4.5: Pentax SMCP 645 150/3.5 6x6: Zeiss Tessar-CB 160/4.8 for Hasselblad Zeiss Sonnar CF/CFi 250/5.6 for Hasselblad Zeiss Tele-Tessar CF 350/5.6 for Hasselblad 6x7: Mamiya K/L 180/4.5 Mamiya RZ 180/4.5 Pentax SMCP 67 Soft 120/3.5 Pentax SMCP 67 500/5.6 Large Format Schneider Xenar 150/5.6 Schneider Xenar 210/6.1 Rodenstock APO-Ronar 150 Rodenstock APO-Ronar 240 Rodenstock APO-Ronar 300 Rodenstock APO-Ronar 360 Nikkor-M 200 Nikkor-M 300 Nikkor-M 450
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000
From: tintype_NO_@_SPAM_megsinet.com (Peter Mikalajunas)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Barrel lens
"Lloyd Blacklock" lblacklock@houston.rr.com wrote:
>Can someone answer a couple of questions regarding barrel lens? > >If they do not have shutters, how are they used?
There are a number of options:
1.) Use a hat, darkslide, etc
2.) Use a packard shutter. These are simple air operated devices that
produce 1 or 2 shutter speeds.
3.) You can have the lens front mounted in an older shutter.
4.) Find a decent older shutter and have it mounted.
5.) Pay for a new copal shutter and have it mounted.
It will all depend on how you want to use the lens. How much you can
afford. Finally, only you can make the call as to whether or not to
spend the money on mounting in a new shutter.
For new packard shutters, hose, bulbs, feed throughs ect.
http://www.hubphoto.com/
For used packard shutters, email them. They almost always have some
in stock. http://www.pond.net/~equinox/ Take a moment and read their
article on older lenses.
For new copals, front mounting and a host of other services
http://www.skgrimes.com/ Steve can also supply used shutters if you
ask him.
There is some very good old and new glass available in barrel mounts.
There is also some real junk floating around. If you are not sure
about a lens, ask, some one here will be able to help.
Peter Mikalajunas
Photo links
http://www.megsinet.com/tintype
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000
From: jjames7774@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: inexpensive WA lens
The 90mm/f6.8 schnieder angulons are very nice lenses. I used one for a
long time and had good results. You can find them all over the place for
$150-$300USD. James
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000
From: C. Downs
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Vintage Angulons
slberfuchs@aol.com (SlberFuchs) wrote:
>I just got a 120 and a 90 angulon .. the 120 from around 1955 and the 90 from >late 60's. I recall seeing resolution comparison charts that showed various >classic lenses by focal length but cant remember where. Any help? Further >comments on both or either of these lens by users is appreciated. Both general >and experience on how they perform with color transparancy film. > >Thanks > >Ted
They will preform quite well! They need to be between f/16 and f/32
for best results. As for all lenses they are limited in sharpness by
diffraction as you stop down further and these lenses need at least
f/11 to start performing very well.
I use the 90 on an ultralight body along with a 58xl for backpacking
and never wish I had my 90 5.6 SuperAngulon along. Great for color
also . They have far less coverage than their newer cousins but are
quite capable of Chromes that can be enlarged to 30x40. Mine are
Linhof and should be "pick of the litter" so assembly quality may be
of issue { always is in the older classics }. They are a little more
prone to flair and may be slightly less contrasty than their new
versions.
Shot wide open -- they are poor!
Date: 19 Jan 2000
From: J Greely jgreely@corp.webtv.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Process lenses for landscape?
Jim hsthomashs@cts.com writes:
>Landscapes might suffer if forground subjects are >included. Does this sound right?
I wouldn't presume to argue with you, but Ron Wisner would:
http://www.wisner.com/myth.htm
A bit of browsing through Kingslake's "A history of the photographic
lens" also suggests that a bias against these classic symmetrical
designs for general use is unfounded. Their natural correction of
coma, distortion, and lateral color is *best* at 1:1, which is what
makes them so good for copy use, but most such designs "exhibit only
very small transverse aberration residuals even when used with an
infinitely distant object".
-j
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000
From: david@meiland.com (David Meiland)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Need advice on a large format lens on a budget
ohelsie@aol.com (Oh elsie) wrote:
>Greetings ye gods of large format photography! > > >Made the jump to large format 4x5 a year ago and am hooked. Currently am using >a 210mm Nikkor that came with my used Calumet and have been very pleased with >results. I want to purchase a used 75mm to 90mm lens for under $500. I see >adds for lenses in this price range often in Shutterbug, but what is the best >lens for the money? > > Thanks for your reply in advance, > > Jim Chinn
I suggest buying a Super Angulon 90/8 used, either on eBay or
rec.photo,marketplace. There used to be a lot of stuff for sale on
usenet for good prices. Unfortunately, eBay seems to have really put a
lid on it. You should be able to get an older single-coated 90SA for
$350-400 in a Copal shutter, the newer multicoated ones might run
around $500. They are great lenses, and fairly common as LF lenses go
(but not nearly so common as the 210s). You should plan on looking for
a while to get a good deal.
If you want to buy from a dealer, you might try KEH. Their listings of
LF lenses are here:
http://209.35.112.41/shop/product.cfm?bid=LF&cid;=06&sid;=used&crid;=256106
The prices are more than you'll pay a private individual, but they
have stuff in stock.
---
David Meiland
Oakland, CA
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" K.Thalmann@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: This 35mm vs 4x5 myth
chris kelly wrote:
> Kerry (and Scott), > Tell me, What are some good 4x5 setups for under a couple of > thousand dollars? I tend to use a 24mm lense alot when doing > landscapes. If I was to have one large format lense to start, this > would probably be it (or are there some better recommendations)? > Oh, when I say a couple of thousand dollars, what I really mean > is $1500 to $2000. And I don't mean doing this any time soon. > My 35mm must get better first. I can see the one shot one kill > approach to photography getting better results (forgive the > military backround). I have to get better before I try it though.
Hi Chris,
You might want to ask these questions in
rec.photo.equipment.large-format where you will get helpful replies from
several large format users.
You can get a very nice field camera and a 90mm wide angle lens (a
little bit longer than a 24mm in 35mm, but the next widest is a 75mm -
about like 22mm in 35mm) which will be more expensive, harder to use and
requires an expensive center filter) for well under $2000 new. For
example, a 4x5 Tachihara (entry level Japanese made wood field) runs
about $600 new. For another $200 - $300 you can get a wooden Wista,
which is similar in features to the Tachihara, but has better fit and
finish (and looks nicer, IMHO, if that matters). You can get a brand
new 90mm f8 Fujinon SW for less than $700. Assuming you already have a
sturdy tripod/head and a 35mm camera with a built in meter, all you'll
need to add to get started will be some film and holders. Eventually,
you may want to get a handheld meter and/or another lens, but you'd
still be under $2000.
Of course, that assumes you buy new. There are some great bargains on
the used LF market. You can get started for as little as a couple
hundred dollars, but what you save in money, you sacrifice in
flexibility and convenience. In that price range, you will probably
only get an old press camera (like a Speed Graphic) with limited
movements, or an older model monorail (like a Calumet C400), which is
heavy and bulky to carry into the field. Of course, this is a great way
to try large format with a minimum financial risk. If you decide LF
isn't for you, you resell the equipment at little or no loss. If you
decide it is for you, you can also sell the equipment at little or no
loss and buy something better. That's how I got started in LF, with an
old Speed Graphic I bought for $200 complete with lens and two film
holders. I used it for a year and sold it to another LF wannabe for the
same $200. Even though the camera had limitations, there are still a
couple images made with it on my web site.
The other route is to by used equipment of more recent manufacture.
Most of my current LF equipment was purchased this way. A lot of people
try LF and decide it isn't for them, so there is a constant supply of
almost new, modern :F gear on the used market.
Still, all this has ignored one important aspect - what is best for
YOU. In LF, probably more so than smaller formats, cameras have certain
strengths and weaknesses. Some are lightweight (good for lugging around
in the field), but limited, others are more full featured, but heavy.
Unlike a 35mm camera body that can accept lenses from fisheye to super
telephoto, LF cameras have limitations on the focal lengths they can
use. If you only work with wide angles, a camera with 12" bellows may
be all you ever need, but if you want to shoot with anything longer than
300mm (about like 85mm in 35mm format) at infinity (shorter maximum
focal length for close-ups), you'll need a longer bellows. Of course, a
camera with a 20" bellows is gloing to be heavier, and most likely more
expensive than the model with 12" of bellows. Plus, it may require an
expensive bag bellows to work well with your wide angles.
Also, I often recommend people new to LF start out with a lens in the
135mm - 150mm range. These lenses are smaller, lighter, less expensive
and easier to use than wide angles or long lenses. They will easily
work on any camera you buy, and you'll probably want one eventually
anyway. You may also find yor photographic style will evolve
differently in 4x5 than in 35mm. Since you already seem pretty
committed to a wide angle, you may want to ignore this piece of advice
(but at least understand the reasons behind it).
Before spending a lot of money on a camera and lens, you should do a
little more research on the limitations of various cameras. All LF
field camera designs represent a series of compromises (weight vs.
rigitity vs. bellows length vs. movement capability vs. cost, etc.).
The key is to find the camera with the right combination to best meet
your needs. Only you can answer that question.
One nice thing about LF is the lack of a dedicated lens mount. Barring
physical limitations (trying to put too big of a lens on too small of a
camera), any lens from any manufacturer can be put on any brand of
camera. I currently have lenses from all four of the big name
manufacturers (Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon and Fuji). Some of them
I've had for ten years, and have used them on multiple cameras over that
time. So, my advice is to invest in good quality glass. Even if you end
up outgrowing your first camera, you can keep the lenses and just buy a
new body (and perhaps a few new lensboards).
In addition to the LF newsgroup, a couple good places to start your
research are:
http://www.ai.sri.com/~luong/photography/lf/
the large format section of Philip Greenspun's photo.net at:
http://www.photo.net/photo/
for information about older cameras and lenses:
http://www.graflex.org/
and finally, I have started a LF homepage at:
http://largeformat.homepage.com/
there isn't a lot there right now (one camera review, and a couple
articles on lenses), but I'll be adding to it as time allows.
Finally, when you get ready to buy, I suggest you contact Badger Graphic
Sales and Midwest Photo Exchange. Badger is a LF speciality shop that
carries a huge variety of LF gear at great prices. They import Fuji LF
lenses and Wista cameras directly from the manufacturers at prices much
lower than the competition. They also occasionally have good deals on
used equipment. Midwest is a big used equipment dealer with a good
selection and good prices. Midwest also sells the Tachihara and a few
other models new.
Hope that helps. Take your time and do a little reading before making
your choice. The factors involoved in buying LF is completely different
than buying 35mm. There isn't nearly as much information in the popular
press, but fortunately, there are some great online resources. Use them
to your advantage.
--
Kerry L. Thalmann Large Format Images of Nature
A Few of My Images Online at: http://www.thalmann.com/
Date: 12 Jan 2000
From: auctionfan@aol.com (AuctionFan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Ricoh
>From: "eduda" eduda@netcom.ca > >I've gathered that Ricohflexes, Ricoh Diacords are built like >tanks. But what kind of photos are they capable of producing? Is it a brand >one should seriously consider if looking to get into medium format?
Let's save everyone 100 similar questions/postings in the future by saying
that Rikenon lenses are 4 element and Riconar are 3 element. For Yashica,
Yashinon are 4 element and Yashikor are 3 element. For Rolleiflex and
Rolleicord: Xenar & Tessar are 4 element.
By now you are getting the idea, hopefully, that there is no "secret
weapon" in lenses. They are either 4 element copies of the famous Zeiss
Tessar or the 3 element Taylor, Hobson/Cooke. Both lens formulas
developed in the late 1890's to early 1900's and the only improvement
being coating of the lens implemented in the 1950's.
Don't be frightened by the invention date of these lenses. Physics
doesn't change. There is no "new, improved" gravity or sunlight either.
These lenses are the best 3 & 4 element lenses ever made - no room for
improvement. Just as the 6 element 50mm lenses on the newest 35mm
autofocus whiz-bang cameras also happen to be Planar copies... uh huh,
developed in 1896 and the only improvement being the type of glass used to
make them... but the mathematical formula is the same.
Now, let's sweat the really important stuff - developing our ability to
see a picture that the rest of the world will still be talking about 50
years from now.
AF.
Date: 12 Jan 2000
From: =David=M- dmcs@cyburban.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Ricoh
> Let's save everyone 100 similar questions/postings in the future by saying that > Rikenon lenses are 4 element and Riconar are 3 element. For Yashica, Yashinon > are 4 element and Yashikor are 3 element.
And Lumaxar are 4-element and Yashimar 3-element. Both also found on
Yashica TLR's.
The only other TLR to have a better than 4-element lens apart from
Rollei was British MPP MIcroflex (as far as I know).
Avoid Ricohflex (the ones with geared lenses).
[Ed. note: source for shutters?]
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Compur manufacture
Neither Gauthier nor Copal nor Seikosha are out of business, and all
Deckel designs were picked up by Gauthier -- the merger of Gauthier and
Deckel was one of corporate convenience mandated by the Zeiss Foundation,
their common owner.
All Rolleiflex 127 and f/3.5 120 cameras used Size 00 shutters; all f/2.8
120 TLR cameras used Size 0 shutters. These are standard large-format
shutter sizes. When F&H; started building TLR cameras in the 1930's, they
just took LF shutters off the shelf. Before the Second World War, these
shutters were made by dozens of companies in dozens of countries; Franke
& Heidecke used Deckel's Compur designs as they were the most noted German
brand. After the Second World War, the Japanese firms of Copal and
Seikosha also produced similar designs. These are totally mechanical
designs which require production techniques quite different than those on
more modern electro-mechanical or electronic shutters.
The demand for small LF shutters went down dramatically over the past 30
years. Hence, the only demand for Size 0 mechanical shutters now is for
Rollei 2.8GX cameras. So, the problem is that no manufacturer is willing
to produce what is in effect a minute run of a limited-demand shutter.
Seikosha, Copal, and Gauthier still produce LF shutters in larger (1, 2,
3, &c;) sizes.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From: sanking@hubcap.clemson.edu (Sandy King)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Shutter repair question
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000
> LaserAndy wrote: > > > > I have a Synchro Compur shutter in a Super Angulon 65 f8. > > > > The upper speeds all work fine, but 1/15th and below, the escapement sticks and > > doesn't close the shutter properly. > > > > I had this same problem when I first got the lens, and the seller fixed it for > > me pretty quickly. I don't want to have to send it back to get it fixed, so > > I'm going to fix it myself. (I've done a little of this before on other > > cameras). > > > > Is there anything I need to look out for going into this shutter? > > > > What do I need to do to get it running again properly? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Andrew > > Spend the $75 and have it CLA'd and timed. Money well spent. Any of > the competent servicemen mentioned on this NG can do it and do it well. > Sam Grimes, Ken Ruth, to mention just a few. > > Regards, > > Marv
I also recommend Paul Ebel in Spring Valley, WI. Telephone 715-778-4372.
His price is $36 CLA on view camera lenses.
Sandy King
Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2000
From: tintype_NO_@_SPAM_megsinet.com (Peter Mikalajunas)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: JML Goodkin Astro lens
=David=M- dmcs@cyburban.com wrote:
>I aquired this nice-looking process lens of 209mmf8 >Anyone know anything about its application? > >The odd thing about it is that the aperture control is behind the >retaining ring. That is assuming the lens ring with the writing is at >the front. The front surface of the lens and the back both look about >the same - highly convex. Perhaps it could be used either way around?
The front element has the name in plain lettering. The rear element
appears to have the name hand etching is cursive script. The iris
sits behind the front element ahead of the retaining ring.
JML is an optical company located in Rochester, NY.
The website for JML is at:
http://www.netacc.net/~jmlopt/
On the JML website, they talk about cemented achromatic doublets and
triplets:
http://www.netacc.net/~jmlopt/products/achromatic/index.html
From what I can tell, this is a cemented doublet. The box mine came
in is dated 1995.
Chris Perez has picture of one up on his website, he claims it will
cover 11x14, something I haven't tried. I know it covers 8x10 with a
good deal of movement.
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/cameras/nice_lenses.html
They show up on eBay and usually sell for under $100.00, which is a
real bargin.
Peter Mikalajunas
Photo links
http://www.megsinet.com/tintype
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000
From: tintype@megsinet.com (Peter Mikalajunas)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: This 35mm vs 4x5 myth
Keith Clark ClarkPhotography@spiritone.com wrote:
>Peter Mikalajunas wrote: >> >> Most of us never get to use that glass until it has had at least 1 or >> more previous owners :-) There is a sizable number of LF users who >> prefer much older glass. I prefer my 95 year old 210mm B&L; protar >> over my 2 year old 210mm APO-Symmar most days. Is the protar sharper, >> no way, it isn't even coated. > >Peter (and Kerry), > >I've been ignoring this topic up till now but this is where it gets >interesting to me, as someone about to make the plunge to LF... > >Why, Peter, do you prefer the older, uncoated, less sharp lens? Wouldn't >the newer, sharper lens give better (enlarged) prints? > >Inquiring minds would like to know. > >Thanks, >Keith
People choose to use older glass for any number of reasons. I have
heard many, who talk about the feeling it gives them (the
photographer) to know they are using the same lens several generations
of photographers have used.
I am not that much of a romantic. Early on it was a matter of cost.
Except for the glass that has gained a cult-like following, 50 or 75
year old glass sells very inexpensive, about the same price it sold
for new in some cases. Having an assortment of older lenses of
various focal lengths was a learning experience. I got hands on
experience in the difference between a 90mm and 300mm on a 4x5.
After a while, I went out and paid for a new lens. For something like
stock or product or catalog work, new is the way to go. But I don't
do those things. My final output is likely to be a bromoil or gum
print. For these, old glass does just fine.
I will also use them for silver prints as well. Given the same shot
on the same film, the old glass produces a warmer, softer image. At
least to my eyes, and I know that is highly subjective. It is a look
that I have been unable to duplicate with filters, etc. Technically,
I suspect it is a matter of some diffraction mixed in with aberration
here and there.
I am sure Kerry, with his vast experience, will point out how close
some older lenses are in their performance to new glass. I should add
at this point, that some older glass I have tried belongs on the
collector's shelf. In those cases, I suspect, they never were of much
use to anyone :-))
One last note. Trying to carry an 8x10 into the field is painful
enough (not as young as I would like). I finally found a nice Protar
to keep me company. With both elements it is a 300mm lens, the single
elements are 470mm and 580mm. So for the weight and cost of one lens,
I get 3 focal lengths.
Peter Mikalajunas
Photo links
http://www.megsinet.com/tintype
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000
From: "Jon Kindy Jon Kindy" jdk@fc.hp.com
To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Wow! Re: homebrew lense ideas
Thanks for all the advice.
> Wow, sounds like you hit the jackpot ;-)
Yeah, I'm excited. But I know how well I've done on finishing other
projects....
> The real question is what do you want to do? ;-) Sounds like you have the > cameras too? So you may be only a few steps away from a sheet or rollfilm > based setup? Do they have shutters and diaphragms as part of the cameras? > > Frankly, I'd look at the format (4x5? 5" aerial film?) and consider a view > camera as a low cost setup - you can buy Calumet CC-400s or the like > monorails for modest $$$- like $150-200+, giving the ultimate in shift/tilt
Well, I have a few things in mind -- I'm mostly a recreational shooter
and have a small EOS system as my main system. I'd like to get a bit
more into medium format; I also enjoy fiddling around with things.
I do have the cameras but I'm afraid they're of limited utility.
They're interesting -- they appear to be made for air recon. There is
no real provision for focus and they have a metal (tin?) focal plane
shutter with shutter speeds of 500, 1000, 2000. The shutter speed is
adjusted simply by changing the width of the slit that exposes the
film.
They're also made to operate with some sort of electronic trigger --
they have motors that require 28V DC -- although there is provision
for mechanically firing. When I've fired them mechanically it appears
that the shutter does not close all the way to the edge of the frame
so I would expect one edge to be completely overexposed. I have one
film back that fits all of the cameras. It appears to take *large*
spools of 220 or 70mm film.
> for medium format hacking: > You need to determine the lens registration distance, then use that to pick > potential focal plane camera bodies. See links to WJ Markerink's > tables
Yes, I looked at this. One added problem with the Biogon is that I
doubt it would fit and still leave room for a mirror -- the rear
element extends pretty far into the body. I suspect that some sort of
a view camera will end up being the best bet for this one.
> however, I suspect you will find most benefit and utility from a view or > even mini-view camera approach (some 2x3" or 6x9cm view cameras, also > press cameras out there, have focal plane shutters, like graflexes, so > make it easy to modify and mount a barrel lens in a diaphragm setup and use.
I'm coming to this conclusion as well. I also like it because I'll
may be able to get some perspective control if the lenses have the
coverage. One of the cliche shots I'd like to take is a beautiful
close-up of Colorado wildflowers with mountains in the background. I
live close enough but don't (yet!) have the right equipment.
> see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/albro.html links on camera models to > QT Luong's site on large format and various options there...
I looked on QT Luong's site -- I'll look some more. FYI: One of your
links to QT Luong's site appears to be broken --
http://www.ai.sri.com/~luong/photography/lf/23view on
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/view.html
[Ed. note: Thanks! fixed...]
Thanks again for the advice
-Jon
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000
From: ralph fuerbringer rof@mac.com
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: Nikon 15mm5.6 for panoramic photos?
Pentax's zeiss-designed 15mmf3.5 w/aspherical element didn't just blow
away the nikkor it still fits all 35 slr's including eos but nikon and
olympus. they're too fat. there are better panorama alternatives to the
v-pan's price and film size. A brooks plaubel verwide 100 (47mm on 6xl0
format) at a fraction of the cost is as wide as the horribly expensive
v-pan w/30mm or linhof,fuji. Cropping to a 3-1 proportion gives the effect
of a rising front. I update xl-type veriwides to 612 shift cameras w/35 to
55 apo-grandagons but there are cheaper if less convenient alternative.
Using the front or rear standard from the 45 view you may already have can
get you top quality panorama. sinar & cambo used to offer these pancakes.
a 45mm apo-grandagon covers the 45 long dimension with a 10mm shift. a
shift can be achieved cheaply with an additional lensboard spaced and
threaded like the first but 10mm up. a 617 would have to be 624 to equal
this horizontal angle. I can supply a 45mm apo-grandagonf4.5 new in
factory-boxed focusing mount for $l000,$500 less than b&h; where it takes
forever for the focusing moun
-- rof
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: old lens info needed
radiojon@means.net wrote:
>Just picked up a box of camera parts from a friend and found The fron end of >a Bush Prewssman (actually intact, but goo back assembly).The Color Skopar >lens in a Compur Rapid shutter looks fair new, has a modern flash terminal, >etc. It's a 105 3.5. Is it worth trying to mount on my 2x3 Century >Graphics, or is my Xenar better/as good. > >Sam basic lens, but older and uncoated is on a Voigtlander folder. Are >these Tessar clones? > >TIA John
Skopar was Voigtlander's Tessar type. I don't know if the Color
Skopar was different in any way other than being coated.
These lenses have a good reputation but I can't answer for its
quality compared to the Xenar. Perhaps you can rig it on a temporary
cardboard lensboard and check the image on the ground glass. Check at
the corners for the minimum stop where coma (smearing of small
highlights) disappears. Which ever lens can be used at a larger stop
is likely better in other ways too. For pre-WW-2 lenses I would give
Voigtlander an edge over Schneider, not so much for post 1945 lenses.
Voigtlander had a reputation for very good quality.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
"Jon Judson" jjudson@spamstuff.erols.com wrote:
> Does anyone know where I can get lens specs for Nikkor and Fuji lenses? > Preferably at a website?
Fuji spec's at:
http://www.thefstop.com/equipment/new/fuji.html
Nikon seems to be uninterested in their LF lenses, and doesn't even
mention them on their web site, but the do have a (1989) brochure
available.
Chris Ellinger
Ann Arbor, MI
Date: 17 Dec 1999
From: ellis@ftel.net (Rick Ellis)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lens Specs for Nikkor and Fuji
Jon Judson jjudson@spamstuff.erols.com wrote:
>Does anyone know where I can get lens specs for Nikkor and Fuji lenses? >Preferably at a website?
There's a lot of specs at http://www.graflex.org/lenses/lens-spec.html
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999
From: tintype_NO_@_SPAM_megsinet.com (Peter Mikalajunas)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Barrel Lenses- Use in monorail camera?
wardcheese@aol.com (WardCheese) wrote:
>Are barrel lenses just for use in cameras with their own shutters? Is there a >way to use a barrel lens in a regular monorail camera?
It is very simple to use a barrel lens. You have several options.
1. You can simply use a hat, lens cap or dark slide and count.
2. Packard shutters are great. They are simple open/close devices.
Take a look at: http://www.hubphoto.com/ also Equinox sells them
cheap: http://www.pond.net/~equinox/ They can be mounted behind or in
front of the lens.
http://www.ai.sri.com/~luong/photography/lf/shutters.html
3. You can have SK Grimes do a front mount very inexpensively or
have the lens fully mounted if you feel it is worth it. Steve is
great to deal with. http://www.skgrimes.com/
Peter Mikalajunas
From Panoramic Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000
From: James Young jamiehy@globaldialog.com
Subject: Re: Lenses for 8x20
>I normally use a V-pan in 6x17 cm format. I recently got an 8x20 Korona >view camera - but without a lens. Does anybody have recommendations on >lenses that will cover this format? I would prefer modern lenses. > >Nathan
A 305 G -claron will just cover 8x20 I have one and have shot with it on
8x20 the 355 G claron will cover easily the nikkor 450m does a good job
too.
Any artar 19" or above will cover. Ronars have about the same coverage.
Most 14 " dagors will too. some 12" dagors might. The 11x14 turner reich
triple convertable 15-24-36 will cover as well. This lense also was stock
on 16" cirkuts.
Lots of other lenses will work too- Jamie
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999
From: Brian Ellis beellis@gte.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Mounting a lens on a board. How to and Is it
difficult?
Your message asks about mounting a lens board that has a "hole of the
proper size." As long as the hole is already cut, you don't need a lathe
or any other elaborate tools. The only tool you need is a spanner wrench.
Calumet has a cheapo version that they'll give to you for free if you buy
anything from them and ask for it (or at least they gave me one years ago)
and it has worked fine. You also can buy more elaborate ones from them in
several different versions ranging in price from something like $15 to $50
(as I recall). Once you have a spanner wrench, mounting is very simple
with every lens I've ever seen. Unscrew the lens so that it is separated
into the front part and the back part, place the back of the front part
through the hole in the lens board, screw the mounting ring (which should
come with the lens) onto the fron part so that the lens board is
sandwiched between the front part of the lens and the mounting ring,
tighten the mounting ring with the spanner wrench, screw the second part
of the lens back onto the first part and you're done.
After you've done it once it takes about thirty seconds after that. Brian
Martin Krieger wrote:
> None of the books I have seen tell me how to mount a lens on a > lensboard that has a hole of the right size. I know for example that > Linhof boards need the hole 6mm below center, for example. But that is > not the question. Is it easy? How do I do it? Are there any things to > look out for. I am a newbie about this, and so if it is a FAQ and written > up somewhere, a reference would be fine too. > > Thanks, > > Martin > > krieger@usc.edu
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Zeiss Apo-Tessar 90cm lens
you wrote:
>Greg, > >Many graphic lenses can be made in to large format lenses for view cameras. >To do this they need to be shuttered. See: > >http://www.skgrimes.com/lensmount/index.htm > >He has got a pictoral on how he does this repair. > >Todd
A Packard shutter does the trick at a reasonable price. The problem is
the 35" focal length, too much for most 8x10 field cameras. If you happen
to have an 8x10 or 11x14 studio camera you are home free. They typically
have 50" or more bellows draw.
I was lucky to find an Ilex #5 Universal shutter which had never had a
lens mounted on it. I made an adaptor to take small lens boards so it will
work as a rear shutter and use a variety of barrel lenses, including a
couple of process lenses on it.
More on topic, I shot a bunch of pictures of my lady friend the other
day using a Rolleikin on my 2.8E. The lens at 80mm is just about right for
portraits on 35mm. The images are quite astonishingly sharp. I shot some
with this arrangment and with a Nikon with 105mm lens. The Nikon is
probably a little faster. Framing was pretty good even though there is no
parallax correction for the Rollei with this kit.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Users list digest V5 #16
you wrote:
>Richard Knoppow wrote: >> Focal Plane shutters also have longer effective times than the marked >> speeds due to diffraction at the edges of the slit. The error is related to >> slit width, distance of the curtain from the focal plane, aperture setting, >> and focal length. Not much of a problem with small cameras but quite >> significant for larger FP shutters such as those on Speed Graphic and >> Graflex cameras. > >Hi Richard! > > I've got one of the Graflex SLRs with all the slit widths and tension >settings. In your opinion, assuming a correctly operating curtain, about >how much slower are the fastest speeds above 1/200 of a second? > > My "guess" is its very similar to between the lens shutters, typically >20 to 30 percent shower.
The Graflex shutter is a simple and rather crude one. Except for the
Pacemaker series of Speed Graphic there is really nothing to regulate the
travel speed other than inertia and friction of the mechanism. At the
higher tensions the curtain accelerates as it travels, so, at the highest
speeds the exposure at the bottom of the film, where the shutter starts
its travel, will be about twice the exposure at the top. In the 1920's
this effect was actaully advertised as a virtue since it would
automatically underexpose the sky in landscapes darkening it.
The calculation of the actual speed of a focal plane shutter is somewhat
complex. It depends on angle of the cone of light from the lens as well as
the dimensions of the shutter. i.e. it varies with focal length and f/stop
(and actually with focussed distance).
For details see:
_Photography: Its Materials and Processes_ Sixth Edition, C.B. Neblette,
ed., (1962) New York: D. Van Nostrand Company ,Inc. Chapter 12:
"Photographic Shutters" pp.103ff
The same material may be in earlier editions as well.
Or: _Handbook of Photography_ Keith Henney and Beverly Dudley, editors,
(1939) New York: Whittlesey House division of McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Chapter V: "Shutters", p.112 ff.
My 4x5 Super-D Graflex uses slit "B" for 1/200. It measures 11mm in
height and is about 11mm from the focal plane (this camera has a Graflok
back on it, the spacing is likely a little less for the original back).
Calculating for the 190mm, f/5.6 lens used wide open at infinity the
efficiency is about 85% so you are not far wrong. The efficiency
conditions for focal plane shutters has been well known for a very long
time so its possible that they were taken into account when calibrating
the Graflex shutter, although, again its a pretty crude device.
35mm and MF cameras are likely to have a more favorable combination of
spacing vs: slit width but I haven't actually measured either my Nikon or
old Leica so maybe it isn't. In any case, measuring focal plane shutter
speed with a simple speed tester like the Calumet tester requires some
understanding of what is actually being measured and some care.
I've found, BTW, that a lot of older Speed Graphic shutters have the
tension cranked way up to get the highest speed to measuer 1/1000 on a
simple tester. That makes the slower speeds very far off.
I guess this is somewhat on topic since Rolleiflex SLR's use FP
shutters.
BTW, before the late 'twenties or early thirties Graflex's were the
standard press photographer's camera. At some point a New York Times
photog got killed while photographing an automobile race. He had his face
in the focussing hood and couldn't see a car heading straight for him.
After that the Times banned Graflex's and press photographers began to
take up the Speed Graphic.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] in-between aperture and shutter speeds on TLR?
you wrote:
>---------- >>From: Stanley E Yoder syoder+@andrew.cmu.edu >>To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >>Subject: Re: [Rollei] in-between aperture and shutter speeds on TLR? >>Date: Tue, Sep 14, 1999, 2:16 PM >> > >> Several of you have now written that the Compurs have stepped cams, and >> thus no intermediate speeds. So once again my memory has proved >> unreliable (sigh). You also corrected me in that the 'gear-change' is >> between 1/10 and 1/25 (not 1/25 and 1/50), and so it is. >> Are/were there any widely-used inter-lens shutters that DO/DID have >> continuous cams? > >I can't think of any. > >> Also, T and B on older Compurs do not require cocking, while later >> versions do (though usually only B is provided.) Is this intentional, or >> is it perhaps a by-product of other design changes, such as to >> accommodate linkages to film-advance mechanisms (as with the Rollei)? >> > >I think it was a matter of simplifying the mechanism. There were also >some shutters, often identified as "press" models, which did not require >cocking at all for any speed. Presumably this was because press photographers >were always rushed for time and this saved them the extra motions required >to cock the shutter. > >Bob
Using the term "press shutter" for self-setting shutters seems to be a
very recent thing. For one thing NO press camera ever had such a shutter.
Look at them, all the old cameras had either Compur shutters or, in the
later ones Kodak or Wollensak cockable shutters. Some military Speed
Graphics had Ilex lenses in Ilex Acme cockable shutters. The term press
shutter meant a shutter with a "press focus" feature, i.e. a blade
arrestor so you could hold the shutter open for focussing without changing
the speed setting. Some press shutters also had extra heavy duty cocking
levers (Press Compur) or somewhat different features than the standard
version. Press Compure shutters did not have the self timer for instance.
Self setting shutters are not capable of the high speeds that a cockable
shutter is and those speeds were necessary in press work. They were used
mainly for cheap cameras where a full range of speeds was not necessary.
Also, if you have ever actually used a press camera for press type work
(I have) you will realize that the time it takes to cock the shutter is a
very small part of the overall time it takes to set up for a shot. Most of
the time is for changing the film holder.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: rich@cup.hp.com (Rich Satterlee)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Any pitfalls in making lensboards?
Date: 28 May 1999
Erik Ryberg (ryberg@seanet.com) wrote:
: Okay, now for the cheapskate approach: : piece of broomstick or whatever to make it by and large round. Paint : the back black when you get around to it (can anybody here prove it : matters - with actual prints? I can't.)
Yep, it sure does matte! My first homebuilt lensboard was made with
hobby shop plywood and the plywood was translucent! I was wondering
why I was getting fog on some negatives. Isolated it down to using
my lightweight lens on the homebuilt lensboard. Stuck my face in
the back (with the back standard off), and stared into a light in
an otherwise darkened room. After about 30 seconds to a minute, I
detected a glow through the lensboard! I think I used 1/8" plywood,
but don't remember for sure.
O.K. Now for the solution. I use black ABS plastic available at my
local TAP dealer. It is somewhat flexible, so without a stiffener,
I only would want to use lightweight lens. No big monsters here. I
use a fly cutter like Richard does for the lenshole. My Tachihara
has different thicknesses of holders for the lensboard top and bottom.
I just use a rasp on the bottom to provide a bevel on it. The
plastic lensboards work fine, and the black wrinkle finish on the
ABS plastic sure isn't like a cherrywood, but it's not all that bad.
I too have made lensboards using PC boards. They work fine for me.
The main point of this post was that I was getting light leaking through
the plywood, even after a coating or two of flat back paint.
Cheers,
Rich S.
From: Erik Ryberg ryberg@seanet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Any pitfalls in making lensboards?
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999
....
Yes, you are right, some of the cheap plywood at hobby shops has missing
pieces in the middle. The cheap stuff is made of three ply, two
extremely thin and a middle of lightweight something or other, and I am
glad you brought this up because I completely forgot about it. It is
important to inspect the sheet you buy to get a good flat, stiff one
that is made of real wood and not cheap crap.
ER
From: David--M dmcs@cyburban.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Any pitfalls in making lensboards?
Date: 1 Jun 1999
Another pitfall is not centering the hole correctly.
Sometimes the hole is not to be centered in the board, because the board
sits off-center in the front standard. Usually this is due to a flange
on one side of the board.
Center measurements should be done with the board mounted not unmounted.
From: cwood7000@aol.com (CWood 7000)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Any pitfalls in making lensboards?
Date: 1 Jun 1999
>Center measurements should be done with the board mounted not unmounted.
A tip: If you are mounting a lens which allows a lot of movement and you
may
require some rise beyond the camera's capability, you can vertically
offset the
lens hole on the mounting board.
From: Bob Salomon robertsalomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000
Subject: Re: Schneider 47mm SA Problem
Wide angle view camera lenses have cosine failure due to the edge rays
travelling further then the rays illuminating the center of the film. A
center filter eliminates most of this problem.
The exposure increase for a center filter is 1 1/3 stops and the lens
needs
to be stopped down at least 2 stops for the filter to work.
--
www.hpmarketingcorp.com for links to our suppliers
HP Marketing Corp. U.S. distributor for Braun, Gepe, Giottos, Heliopan, HP
Combi Plan T, Kaiser fototechnik, KoPho cases, Linhof, Pro Release,
Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar 2000, Tetenal Ink Jet Papers
> From: "Robert Durn" Robert.Durn@tesco.net > Organization: Tesco ISP > Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format > Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 13:10:09 +0100 > Subject: Re: Schneider 47mm SA Problem > > I should have also mentioned I have checked both the meter and the lens is > not shifted in any way. I understand that fall off is to be expected on such > a lens however to be under exposing by one and a third stops in the middle of > the image seems excesive. Sure it is easy to rate 100 ISO chrome at 40 but > all my other MF kit is spot on! > Thanks again. > Rob Durn
zorzim@aol.com
> (ZorziM) wrote: > > >> "Robert Durn" > Robert.Durn@tesco.net >> writes: >> >>> Subject: Schneider 47mm SA Problem >>> From: "Robert Durn" Robert.Durn@tesco.net >>> Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 >>> >>> I have started to use a Schneider 47mm f5.6 SA lens on a Corfield camera. >>> this takes RB67 backs. I find that I need to overexpose by 1-1/3 stops on >>> the aperture for a correct exposure. It is the aperture that is out as I >>> shot a test using both flash as well as daylight. Has any one else found >>> this or have I got a dodgy lens? >>> Many thanks, >> Or is it your meter that's out? It's hard to imagine the aperture >> bingout", but I wonder if what your seeing is just the light falloff toward > the >> corners which is maybe around 1 1/3 stops. If your shooting negatives, it >> makes sense to give it the extr exposure and correct in printing. If your >> shooting chromes I'd probably invest in the center filter which evens out > the >> exposure. >> This isn't a "problem" with the lens by the way. It's just the laws > of >> physics with an extreme wide angle lens.
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000
From: James Chow drjchow@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] shutter speed question
There was a recent post on the large format forumn regarding shutter
settings and lens storage. The conclusion was that only when the shutter
is in "toggle" mode are all the springs completely relaxed. Thus, one
should store LF lenses (at least copal shuttered lenses) in T mode. People
say the same thing about ski bindings, that they should be stored
off-season with the tension lowered (a friend said his bindings were
losing tension since he was storing them off-season fully tensioned). At
least w/ a car, you drive it often, so the resting positions of half of
the valves are random each time. I wouldn't store your 'flex (at least
long-term) w/ the shutter cocked, just for piece of mind. :-)
--Jim
> The highest speed on compurs requires the tensioning of an additional > spring. That is very hard to do with the thumbwheels when the shutter is > cocked. It is easier to do it prior to cocking. I looked at many compurs (I > make it a habit to dismantle one every few months just to remember how it > goes) and cannot see any potential damage risks to the shutter mechanism. > > Another urban mith with shutters is to never leave them cocked because the > spring will go. Well, there is no truth to this. Spring steel is affected > by use, the more you use it, the weaker it gets. over many thousands of > cycles the spring will weaken, but leaving it cocked should not affect the > metalurgical qualities of the steel. To give you an example, in your car, > half of your valve springs are compressed and half are not at any time. If > the urban myth were true, you would have to ditch your valve springs every > so often because they went bad from being tensioned while parked or in > storage. > > - -_______________ > Andrei D. Calciu > NEC America, Inc.
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000
From: Jon Hart jonhart51@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei]shutter speed question
Richard,
You have again given a most enlightening
dissertation. I already "knew" not to cock the shutter
before setting the shutter speed. That comes from my
time in the Stone Age (the 50's, with my relatives,
especially my great-aunt, leading the dirge) when it
was pretty much a mantra among knowledgeable
photographers. But, you mention the "newer" Compur. I
was aware that certain Compurs were engineered
differently and did not require "the drill", but
didn't realize it applied to the general run of such.
At what point (of time or production) did these newly
designed shutters come on line? Are they outwardly
observable as such? Thanks,
Jon
from Deepinaharta, Georgia
Ya'll come on down to Dublin on July 8 for the 5th
Annual Summer Redneck Games featuring the Great Oconee
Redneck Raft Race (if it ever rains again). I
guarantee it's a real hoot.
--- Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> It depends on the shutter. Older Compur-Rapid and > Synchro-Compur > shutters have an additional spring which is > tensioned by the speed cam at > the highest speed. If you attempt to set the shutter > to the hights speed > after its been cocked you stand a chance of jamming > the spring under the > speed cam. You can set it to a lower speed after > cocking. The extra spring > puts quite a bit of force on some parts of the > shutter so its a good idea > to avoid changing the speeds of these shutters when > cocked. > The later Compur, as used in Rollei E's and F's > and on Hasselblad lenses > does not have an extra spring. These shutters can be > set for any speed > whether cocked or not. > The business of not leaving shutters cocked is > mostly due to a > misunderstanding of springs. Springs wear by fatigue > rather than by being > tensioned, provided the tension does not exceed the > elastic limit of the > material. On many shutters there is some extra force > on parts of the > shutter when left cocked. Probably older Compur and > Kodak shutters with > booster springs should not be left cocked in the > highest speed for this > reason. The late type Compure is intended to be left > cocked, as it must be > in a Hasselblad, they are pretty much bulletproof. > The resting tension of > the springs in these shutters is pretty high even > when uncocked. > ---- > Richard Knoppow > Los Angeles,Ca. > dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei]shutter speed question
...[above]
You can tell the older from the newer type of shutter by feel, if no
other way. The booster spring in the older type shutters can be felt when
moving the speed dial to the highest speed. Usually there is also a gap
between the next to hightest speed and the highest speed. The booster
spring is partially tensioned by the speed cam. The shutter is also
noticably harder to cock when at the highest speed. This can be felt a
little even on a Rolleiflex although the crank mechanism has a lot of
mechanical advantage.
The regular spring in both the older shutters and newer shutters is
under some tension even when the shutter is not cocked. In the later
version it is under nearly as much tension as when the shutter is cocked.
Compur shutters of various ages and type use two kinds of main springs,
helical springs (like a screen door spring) and flat spiral springs, like
a clock motor.
Both the very early "dial set" Compur and late Synchro-Compur, as used on
Rollei E and F series cameras use the clock motor type spring. The others
are variable. Most of the rim-set and Compur Rapid types seem to use
helical springs. I suspect that the clock motor type is the more powerful.
My old chrome barrel Schneider Symmar convertible is in a #1 Synchro
Compur with a helical spring in it.
It would be interesting to talk to a real metalurgist to find out more
about springs and their lifetimes. AFAIK, springs become weak through
metal fatigue due to cycling. I don't think, but don't know for certain,
that constant tension or compression will cause the sort of sippage of the
crystaline structure of the metal which results in fatigue. In any case,
the difference in tension of the shutters in the later type Compur between
cocked and fired is very little. The spring is wound up fairly tight even
when the shutter is not cocked.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000
From: JJMcF@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei]shutter speed question
you write:
I just read in Mannhiem's rollei book that if you are using a fast
shutter speed (like 1/500 sec, 1/400 sec), the shutter speed should be set
before the film crank is wound to the next frame. He gives no reasons for
this but suggests that when it is done, less effort is needed to set the
film speed but also prevents shutter damage. Is there any truth to this?
I know nothing about the internal workings of shutters but is there a
difference if the shutter is left cocked at a high shutter speed as
opposed to a low shutter speed as the manual suggest that the shutter
should not be left cocked for any extended periods of time.
The set before cocking rule is particularly significant for older compur
shutters because the highest speed works by bringing in a stiff spring
when you set the higher speed. if you then go to wind the shutter, you
are working (with relatively delicate parts) against a very stiff spring
and could cause deformation of something. Whereas the speed-setting ring
is robust and has no problem bringing the stiff spring into operation.
for the later synchro-compur shutters, this rule is less important but I
always follow it anyway since it makes you a little nervous to wind the
shutter against a lot of resistance.
JMcFadden
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] shutter speed question
you wrote:
>There was a recent post on the large format forumn regarding shutter settings >and lens storage. The conclusion was that only when the shutter is in "toggle" >mode are all the springs completely relaxed. Thus, one should store LF lenses >(at least copal shuttered lenses) in T mode. People say the same thing about >ski >bindings, that they should be stored off-season with the tension lowered (a >friend said his bindings were losing tension since he was storing them >off-season fully tensioned). At least w/ a car, you drive it often, so the >resting positions of half of the valves are random each time. I wouldn't store >your 'flex (at least long-term) w/ the shutter cocked, just for piece of mind. >:-) > >--Jim
Other than the highest speed on shutters with the extra spring there
is really nothing that is tensioned when other speeds are set. The speed
cam controlls the amount of movement of a lever on the regulating
escapement. With some variation among shutters, the escapment position is
changed only when the shutter is cocked. Even then the spring on the
escapement is mainly to return it to its neutral position. The escapement
is similar to the regulator in a watch or clock. It consists of a pallet
operated by a gear which is in turn connected to a gear train. At the end
of the gear grain is a cam which is in contact with a lever attached to
the ring which operates the shutter blades. The main spring forces the
blades open very rapidly, the lever then comes in contact with the cam on
the retarder. It pushes the retarder which allows the lever to move only
slowly until the lever passes the cam. The amount of time which the lever
is in contact with the cam, and therefore the shutter speed, depends on
how far a part of the regulator is meshed. This is what the speed cam
sets. Once free of the cam the main spring can drive the shutter blades
shut rapidly. The tension on the return spring of the escapement are
pretty light and in some shutters doesn't change with speed setting, at
least until the shutter is cocked. It simply doesn't matter what speed the
shutter is left in as long as the booster spring isn't tensioned by having
the speed dial at the highest speed.
All shutters using gear train escapements are based on patents
originally held by Ilex and attributed to Theodore Bruch (sp?). The
original patent dates from sometime in the late teens. Ilex made the bulk
of its income for many years from its patent.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From Panoramic Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000
From: Amaclickclick photo@photographers.co.za
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: Helical Focus Mechanisms
Pentax make a helical focussing mount as a close-up attacchment for the
6x7.
Craig
Craig Woods PO Box 91 Honeydew South Africa 2040 Tel: 082-322-2851 cwoods@iafrica.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Glenn Barry glenn@acay.com.au
To: Panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Sent: 30 May 2000
Subject: Helical Focus Mechanisms
> Hi All, > Does anyone know of a source for helical focus mechanisms, I have > checked out Zoerk and they may be a possibility. In Particular I am > looking to build focus mounts for a 90 f4.5 Nikkor SW and a 300 f5.6 > Schneider Xenar., Any tips appreciated, and I am more than happy to > cannabalise/modify cheap lenses etc etc. > > Thanks > Glenn > -- > Glenn Barry Photography
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000
From: calciua@hn.va.nec.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei]shutter speed question
The highest speed on compurs requires the tensioning of an additional
spring. That is very hard to do with the thumbwheels when the shutter is
cocked. It is easier to do it prior to cocking. I looked at many compurs
(I make it a habit to dismantle one every few months just to remember how
it goes) and cannot see any potential damage risks to the shutter
mechanism.
Another urban mith with shutters is to never leave them cocked because the
spring will go. Well, there is no truth to this. Spring steel is affected
by use, the more you use it, the weaker it gets. over many thousands of
cycles the spring will weaken, but leaving it cocked should not affect the
metalurgical qualities of the steel. To give you an example, in your car,
half of your valve springs are compressed and half are not at any time. If
the urban myth were true, you would have to ditch your valve springs every
so often because they went bad from being tensioned while parked or in
storage.
-_______________
Andrei D. Calciu
NEC America, Inc.
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" K.Thalmann@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: Good Photos in Magazines
Alan Justice wrote:
> What web site do you trust to give reviews?
Hi Alan,
Not just web sites, but the various online discussion forums and
newsgroups. It's not so much that I trust any one particular source,
but with so many to choose from, I feel I can get both more details and
a more balanced assessment of the pluses and minuses of a particular
piece of gear. Since MOST of the people who post in these forums have
no financial interest (and I am REAL leary of those that do) in the
products they are discussing, their opinions tend to be based on actual
use rather than some other agenda.
I shoot large format, so the sites I frequent may or may not be of use
to those shooting other formats, but here's a few of the sources where I
go when looking for info on equipment:
rec.photo.equipment.large-format - a newsgroup dedicated to the
discussion of large format equipment
http://www.ai.sri.com/~luong/photography/lf/
This is Tuan Luong's excellent large format homepage. It has been
around forever and is chock full of LF info from a lot of folks who
actually use the gear and openly share their experiences. This is what
a web based community is all about.
http://www.photo.net/
Phillip Greenspun's photo.net is a huge site full of all kinds of
information on photography, including equipment reviews and discussion
areas.
Also, there are a couple sites I have personal involvment in:
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html
Chris Perez and I have tested several dozen large format lenses of
various ages from many manufacturers. There's a huge variety from 1930s
Protars and Dagors to the latest marvels from Schneider and Rodenstock.
The results are posted on Chris' site. We've also tested a handful of
MF lenses with results at:
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html
http://www.largeformat.homepage.com/
This is my personal LF homepage. It's still under construction (and
like any good web site will probably never be "finished"), but I already
have several lengthy articles and reviews online.
Like I said, these examples are specific to my interests (primarily LF
landscape photography), but some have sections dedicated to other
interests. In any case, they all represent a sense of sharing and
building an online photographic community, and that's what I like about
photography on the web.
Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann Large Format Images of Nature
A Few of My Images Online at: http://www.thalmann.com/
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" K.Thalmann@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000
Subject: Medium Format with Movements (was: cautions.. Re: Fuji RFs
vs. Plaubel Makina)
Michael K. Davis wrote:
> Excellent points Kerry - well written. The availability of movements > aside, how well do you believe a 4x5 equipped with a 6x7 rollfilm back can > compete with something like the Mamiya 7. I've heard people argue that > the shortest Rodenstocks, etc. just aren't as good as Mamiya 7 lenses - > that when they provide enough coverage for 4x5, their failings are not > revealed because of the lesser magnification needed to produce a print of > a given size. I have never used a rollfilm back with large format and > where you have settled on 4x5 as your favorite format, I have "come home" > to 6x7, perhaps for good. I would like to explore something like a > Horseman VF or even an older Linhof 2x3, but I have been inhibited by my > belief that I will have to sacrifice lens performance to get movements.
Hi Michael,
WRT to the wide angle APO Grandagons, I'm not really the right personal
to answer as I have no first hand experience. But, what the heck, this
is usenet where everyone's an expert. The shorter APO Grandagons (35mm
and 45mm) do NOT cover 4x5, so they are obviously designed and intended
for roll film use. Given the fact that they were chosen by both
Horseman and Linhof for the SW612 and Arcbody, they must not be all that
bad. Seriously, I'm sure Bob Salomon would be happy to send you the MTF
curves on these lenses. They are also optimised for best performance at
wider stops (f11, I believe) than most 4x5 lenses. Again, indicating
that they are intended for roll film applications.
As far as "normal" lenses, you'd be hard pressed to beat the 110mm
Schneider Super Symmar XL with any lens in any format. It's absolutly
amazing. I keep hoping they'll come out with a shorter model in the SS
XL series (say an 85) as a compact, lightweight wide angle for 4x5 field
use. That would also make an excellent lens for roll film use.
Although the 100mm APO Symmar and APO Sironar-N are no doubt very good
lenses, it's too bad Rodenstock doesn't make anything shorter than the
135mm in their outstanding APO Sironar-S line. But at least, you know
they could be used as excellent long focal length lenses (135mm, 150mm,
180mm, 210mm) on 6x7.
One advantage you will get with using these lenses on 6x7 is that you
will be using the "sweet spot" in the cnter of their rather large
fields. In other words, the mid-point numbers from or 4x5 test results
will roughly equate to corner numbers on 6x7. When you look at it in
these terms, the very best of the modern LF lenses are capable of coming
fairly close to matching your Plaubel or the Mamiya 7 in corner to
corner resolution. For example, the single samples we tested of the
90mm f8 Nikkor SW and 120mm Super Symmar HM would yield 80 lpmm corner
to corner at f11 and f16 respectively on 6x7. The 150mm APO Sironar-S
would be 76 lpmm corner to corner on 6x7. Actually, if you just look at
the center and midpoint numbers, quite a few of the 4x5 lenses we tested
are capable of at least 60 lpmm, and many 67 lpmm, when using just the
6x7 portion of the coverage. Nothing shorter than 90mm, from our tests
did this well, but then we didn't test many lenses that short (only 3),
and none of the latest generation German ultrawides (APO Grandagon or
Super Angulon XL). Plus, you get the benefit of movements.
One final word of caution with a Horseman of Linhof baby Technika, they
are not the most wide angle friendly cameras in the world. The shortest
lens you can use on a Horseman without significant modifications or
expensive hard to find custom made accessories would be something in the
55mm - 58mm range. Even with accessories and modifications, the 47mm
would be the shortest useable.
I do have two friends who shoot Horseman cameras with the latest
Rodenstock and Schneider glass and are quite happy with the results. If
you don't plan on using the really wide lenses, they have adaquate
movements and are often priced attractively on the used market. If
however, you do plan to use the latest ultrawides, something like a
Linhof Technikardan TK23S or an Arca Swiss F Line would be the way to
go. Unfortunately, both are heavier, bulkier and quite a bit more
expesnive than a used Horseman VH or baby Tech IV.
IMHO, movements on MF way more than make up for any minute difference in
lens quality. That's one reason I don't shoot with medium format more
often. For the type of work I do, I found it very frustrating to not
have movements to get everything from near to far in focus. Without
really realizing it, my photographic style had evolved into one that
tended to prefer lenses in the moderate wide (110mm on 4x5) to slightly
long (240mm on 4x5) focal length range, but still with a leading
foreground in many insatnces. What that meant, was that I almost always
relied on a little tilt to get everything sharp near to far. On medium
format, with a rigid body, I found that for my style of shooting, I
could almost never get everything sharp near to far by just stopping
down. I realize this may just be my own particular shooting style
quirks, but I found I could not do the same type of work (moderate wide
to short tele) and get the results I wanted without camera movements.
Perhaps if I was a big wide angle user, or didn't like to include a lot
of foreground even when using longer lenses, this would not be an issue,
but for me, it was. So, I came to the conclusion that if I was going to
haul a round a view camera and fuss with movements, I might as well
shoot 4x5. Still, there are times when the convience, much lower
weight, and much lower cost per exposure of roll film are a big
incentive.
Good luck on whatver you decide. Do let us know what you get and how it
works out.
Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann Large Format Images of Nature
A Few of My Images Online at: http://www.thalmann.com/
From: "skgrimes" skgrimes@ma.ultranet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.marketplace
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: 75mm Super Angulon focusing mount ??
I recently obtained one of these focus mounts for a 90mm SA from Schneider
for a similar project for a customer. They don't list these on their
web-site and its best to call them about it. After you find out about the
availability you have to arrange the ordering/purchase thru a retail
dealer.
Schneider--(516)-496-8500
SKG
--
S.K. GRIMES -- FEINMECHANIK -- MACHINE WORK FOR PHOTOGRAPHERS
153 Hamlet Ave. (5th floor) Woonsocket RI, 02895
...
[Ed. note: Thanks to Michael Gudzinowicz for sharing these pointers!]
From: bg174@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Gudzinowicz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 14 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: 53mm Super Angulon
David Boyce lightli@globe.net.nz wrote:
>I have just come into possesion of this 53 mm lens, I have tried it out >and stunning is the word I would use (no distortion at the edges at >all!). Can anyone tell me its coverage area? I'm getting some serious >vignetting with it (I dont have a wide angle/bag bellows yet), and >before I dash of and splash out money I dont have, I would like to know >if it covers 4x5. Thanks in advance, David.
The 53 mm f/4 Schneider Super Angulon is an 8/4 design in a #0 shutter
covering 95 degrees or 116 mm. It won't cover 4x5, but will cover 6x9 with
some movement (around 1/2"). The lemses date from the 1950's, so they are
probably single coated. The flange to film distance is 70.2 mm.
It would be a nice lens to use for full circle photos on 5x7 similar to
what
Sam Wang likes to do, but I think he uses a Mamiya lens.
You can check the date of manufacture on the Schneider site, and the specs
are listed for vintage lenses.
http://www.schneideroptics.com
Date: 18 Jul 2000
From: "Michael K. Davis" zilch0@primenet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Medium Format with Movements (was: cautions.. Re: Fuji RFs
vs. Plaubel Makina)
Hi!
Kerry L. Thalmann K.Thalmann@worldnet.att.net wrote:
: Hi Michael, : WRT to the wide angle APO Grandagons, I'm not really the right personal : to answer as I have no first hand experience. But, what the heck, this : is usenet where everyone's an expert. The shorter APO Grandagons (35mm : and 45mm) do NOT cover 4x5, so they are obviously designed and intended : for roll film use. Given the fact that they were chosen by both : Horseman and Linhof for the SW612 and Arcbody, they must not be all that : bad. Seriously, I'm sure Bob Salomon would be happy to send you the MTF : curves on these lenses. They are also optimised for best performance at : wider stops (f11, I believe) than most 4x5 lenses. Again, indicating : that they are intended for roll film applications.
Good point. I can make that assumption comfortably.
: As far as "normal" lenses, you'd be hard pressed to beat the 110mm : Schneider Super Symmar XL with any lens in any format. It's absolutly : amazing. I keep hoping they'll come out with a shorter model in the SS : XL series (say an 85) as a compact, lightweight wide angle for 4x5 field : use. That would also make an excellent lens for roll film use. : Although the 100mm APO Symmar and APO Sironar-N are no doubt very good : lenses, it's too bad Rodenstock doesn't make anything shorter than the : 135mm in their outstanding APO Sironar-S line. But at least, you know : they could be used as excellent long focal length lenses (135mm, 150mm, : 180mm, 210mm) on 6x7.
Yes, there would be lots of normal and short teles to choose from.
: One advantage you will get with using these lenses on 6x7 is that you : will be using the "sweet spot" in the cnter of their rather large : fields. In other words, the mid-point numbers from or 4x5 test results : will roughly equate to corner numbers on 6x7. When you look at it in : these terms, the very best of the modern LF lenses are capable of coming : fairly close to matching your Plaubel or the Mamiya 7 in corner to : corner resolution. For example, the single samples we tested of the : 90mm f8 Nikkor SW and 120mm Super Symmar HM would yield 80 lpmm corner : to corner at f11 and f16 respectively on 6x7. The 150mm APO Sironar-S : would be 76 lpmm corner to corner on 6x7. Actually, if you just look at : the center and midpoint numbers, quite a few of the 4x5 lenses we tested : are capable of at least 60 lpmm, and many 67 lpmm, when using just the : 6x7 portion of the coverage. Nothing shorter than 90mm, from our tests : did this well, but then we didn't test many lenses that short (only 3), : and none of the latest generation German ultrawides (APO Grandagon or : Super Angulon XL). Plus, you get the benefit of movements.
Dare I mention it - I have often suspected that the Plaubel's Nikkor 80
f/2.8 has a much larger image circle than necessary considering the lack
of movements - this might explain its "flatness" of resolution performance
from center to corner. Certainly the short Grandagons would deliver what
I only suspect is true for the Nikkor.
: One final word of caution with a Horseman of Linhof baby Technika, they : are not the most wide angle friendly cameras in the world. The shortest : lens you can use on a Horseman without significant modifications or : expensive hard to find custom made accessories would be something in the : 55mm - 58mm range. Even with accessories and modifications, the 47mm : would be the shortest useable.
Yes, that's been a discouragement for me in considering a 6x7 with
movements as has the small GG.
: I do have two friends who shoot Horseman cameras with the latest : Rodenstock and Schneider glass and are quite happy with the results. If : you don't plan on using the really wide lenses, they have adequate : movements and are often priced attractively on the used market. If : however, you do plan to use the latest ultrawides, something like a : Linhof Technikardan TK23S or an Arca Swiss F Line would be the way to : go. Unfortunately, both are heavier, bulkier and quite a bit more : expensive than a used Horseman VH or baby Tech IV. : IMHO, movements on MF way more than make up for any minute difference in : lens quality. That's one reason I don't shoot with medium format more : often. For the type of work I do, I found it very frustrating to not : have movements to get everything from near to far in focus. Without : really realizing it, my photographic style had evolved into one that : tended to prefer lenses in the moderate wide (110mm on 4x5) to slightly : long (240mm on 4x5) focal length range, but still with a leading : foreground in many insatnces. What that meant, was that I almost always : relied on a little tilt to get everything sharp near to far. On medium : format, with a rigid body, I found that for my style of shooting, I : could almost never get everything sharp near to far by just stopping : down. I realize this may just be my own particular shooting style : quirks, but I found I could not do the same type of work (moderate wide : to short tele) and get the results I wanted without camera movements. : Perhaps if I was a big wide angle user, or didn't like to include a lot : of foreground even when using longer lenses, this would not be an issue, : but for me, it was. So, I came to the conclusion that if I was going to : haul a round a view camera and fuss with movements, I might as well : shoot 4x5. Still, there are times when the convience, much lower : weight, and much lower cost per exposure of roll film are a big : incentive.
You make a convincing argument for shooting 4x5. I remember an earlier
post where you said you usually shoot around f/22. This reveals that you
are essentially using your movements to secure faster shutter speeds than
would be possible if you had to rely on smaller apertures for DoF. If
your 4x5 were rigid, you would have to shoot at f/45 to get the same DoF
as 6x7 at f/22. Your movements are cutting your exposure times down to
25% of what they would be otherwise and you're reducing diffraction
proportionately, also. Conversely, a rigid 6x7 is suffering 4 times the
diffraction shooting at the same aperture as the 4x5 and is not using its
lens's apetures of best resolution when stopped down all the way.
Frankly, I'm content with the grain and tonality of 6x7 enlarged to 16x20
and can't really afford larger prints anyway. And rollilm is SO much
easier. Adding movements to 6x7, we can assume I could shoot at f/11
instead of f/22 and enjoy slow films like Velvia with shorter exposures,
get better resolution, less diffraction.
Well, considering all that movements afford: the lower diffraction and
shorter exposures (had with wider apertures), improved corner resolution
(had with large image circles), improved resolution (shooting closer to
lens apertures of best resolution), it does seem silly to worry about a
few lp/mm's difference between a Mamiya 7's 43mm and an 45mm Grandagon.
I appreciate your input!
Mike
: Good luck on whatver you decide. Do let us know what you get and how it : works out. : Kerry : -- : Kerry L. Thalmann Large Format Images of Nature : A Few of My Images Online at: http://www.thalmann.com/
From: "Michael K. Stenstrom" stenstro@seas.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Rodenstock Grandagon 65mm 4.5 or Schneider Supper-ANGULON
65mm 5.6?
I have a Horseman 45FA, a Rodenstock 45 mm F4.5 and a Horseman 6x12 back.
I am trying to do what you folks have been talking about. The 6 x12 back
is actually closer to 5.5 x 11. There are some other 6 x 12's that are
closer to 6 x 12. I've not gotton very far yet in this endeavor but I've
taken a few pictures. The 45 is about 13 or 14 mm equilevent on 35 mm so
it is really wide. The lens itself is 110 deg. It doesn't cover 4 x 5 and
the corners are pretty dark on a 4 x 5 negative. The lens came with a
center filter, which looks like it might have a 0.5 or 1 stop difference
to from edge to center.
The 45 FA frame will not get close enough to focus the 45 mm lens
without pushing it back on the storage rails. You can focus this
way, and you see the rails in the bottom of your pictures, if you
use 4 x 5 sheet film - OK for 6 x 12. I am looking into a recessed
lens mount for the 45 mm lens. There is a person who makes a custom
one, with enxtenders for the controls.
The 45 mm lens with recessed board can be focused at infinity
with my Horseman monorail camera with no problems.
It's too early for me to make many judgements yet, but I think I'll
be successful. My object was to do panaromas without purchasing a
specialized camera, like Horseman's 6 x 12 cameras (which use the
Rodenstock lenses and 6 x 12 back). In a perfect world, the best
lens for this purpose might be a Schneider 47 mm XL -
about $1400 at B & H. This lens would give you the same wide angle,
and cover 4 x 5. The center filter is $370, however!
mk stenstrom
Mark wrote:
> I bought my Horseman 612 roll film holder in Hong Kong last month. > It cost me about USD 670 for a new one. >> David Boyce lightli@globe.net.nz wrote > > A slip of the finger whilst typing turned 53 into 58, well kind of, > > there is a bit space between them. Anyway, my 53 dosent cover 4x5 but > > it is excelent for panoramas. I have been shooting on 4x5 and then > > croping them in the enlarger, the image almost reaches the end of the > > neg. you might get a little vingetting, but if youi used the 58mm it > > should be okay, I beleve it covers 4x5 with some movments. When I can > > afford it I'll track down a panoramic 120 roll back. That should be > > fun. BTW how much was your 612 back? > >
From: kahhengDELETETHIS@studioQ.com (Tan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: f/8 vs. f/5.6 65mm Super Angulon
Alan & Juliet Duncanson duncanson3@home.com
said this on the Internet:
>I am looking for a 65 mm lens to use with 6x9 >and 4x5 formats. I am attracted to the f/8 >Super Angulon in part because of the low price >for which they are sometimes available. > >It appears that, at 100 deg. coverage, the f/8 >will just barely cover 4x5 with no movements. >Will a center filter help, and maybe allow it >to cover 2 cm of shift? > >Does the f/8 suffer in terms of sharpness in >comparison? I will be making about 5x >enlargements. > >Thanks - Alan
You won't have any problems using that on 6x9 with 2 cm of shift but it's
hard to recommend that much shift for use in the 4x5 format.
If you're looking for a equally cheap center filter, look at the Hoyas
(yes they too make them).
Get a later model of that lens. Some of the earlier ones were terrible.
Regards,
K H Tan
STUDIO Q
http://StudioQ.com
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Wideangle for 5x7
achim fischer wrote:
> IYm currently looking for a wideangle in the 110...150 mm range for 5x7 > (colourwork). Since IYm going to use it mainly for landscapes, I donYt > need coverage for excessive movements - enough coverage for tilts > without the corners getting vignetted too easily would be sufficient. I > was considering the Schneider Symmar-S 150 mm (seems to be a wonderful > lens), but according to Schneider coverage is 210 mm at f/22, which > would be prohibitive for even the slightest movement. Any experiences > with the Nikkor-SW 120 mm f/8 or the Grandagon-N 115 mm f/8 ... or any > alternatives? (Yes I know: the Super-Symmar 5.6/110, but thatYs the > price of a used car...)
Hi Achim,
Please see my other response about the 110mm Super Symmar XL for $1195
from Badger Graphic Sales. BTW, it is a GREAT lens. Great coverage
(288mm), amazing sharpness and in a relatively small package (430g, 67mm
filters).
WRT to a 150mm lens for 5x7, of course there is also the 150mm Super
Symmar XL ($1695 from Badger), but I am currently using a 150mm Super
Symmar HM as my lens of choice in this focal length range for 5x7. It's
a big, heavy lens (740g, 77mm filters), but is very sharp and with 80
degrees of coverage has an image circle of 252mm. I have found this
adaquate for most 5x7 landscape situations. In addition to a much
smaller filter size than the 150mm Super Symmar XL (95mm filters), the
HM version can sometimes be found at relatively "inexpensive" prices on
the used market (I've seen them in the $900 range, and paid even less
for my slightly blemished sample).
One other possibility in a 150mm is the APO Sironar-S. This lens is
much less expensive than the others mentioned ($660 from Badger
Graphics). It is also MUCH smaller (230g, 49mm filters), but has an
image circle of only 231mm. Plenty for 4x5 field work, and enough for
very modest movements on 5x7. Until I got my 150mm Super Symmar HM, I
did use the APO Sironar-S on 5x7, but found the limited coverage a bit
restrictive. The extra 21mm of image circle of the SS HM makes a real
difference. Still, if your budget is limited, and you think you can
live with limited movements, the 150mm APO Sironar-S is a wonderful
little lens (one of my all time favorites for 4x5).
I have more info on these lenses (including pictures that will give you
a sense of the relative size of these lenses) on my Future Classics page
(they all made the list) at:
http://largeformat.homepage.com/future.htm
Good luck. 5x7 is a wonderful format and we are lucky to be blessed
with so many outstanding lens options for this format.
Kerry
--
Kerry's Large Format Homepage
http://largeformat.homepage.com
Date: 2 Aug 2000
From: Donn Cave donn@oz.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wideangle for 5x7
Quoth "Nandakumar Sankaran" nandu@acm.org:
| 210mm = 21cm which is more than 8 inches. Given that you are shooting 5x7, | you have just a little more than a half an inch movement capability in | either direction along the 7" back, right? A half inch is about 12mm | movement. Since I've never used a view camera, I'd like to find out how to | visualize the effect of a 12mm movement on a 150mm lens. Obviously the | effect is much more than a 12mm movement of the camera itself, right?
I'm sure Kerry has already brought back fond memories of
elementary geometry when he demonstrated an application of
the Pythagorean theorem to get the diagonal of the format.
However, since view camera movements don't go along the
diagonal all that often, we have to bring back the Greek
to look at some more right triangles to get the supported
displacement. I hope the following notation is readable.
Because the present coverage figure of 210mm doesn't support
any movements at all, I'm going to use an arbitrary figure
of 319mm, which is what I see listed for a 190mm Kodak Wide
Field Ektar. And 122mm X 170mm for the dimensions of a
5x7 image, from a holder I happen to have at hand.
diameter = 319.0 radius = diameter/2 longedge = 122.0 shortedge = 170.0 cs = shortedge / 2 cl = longedge / 2 ptrise = sqrt(radius*radius - cs*cs) - cl lsrise = sqrt(radius*radius - cl*cl) - cs
Following this calculation, the maximum vertical displacement
from center is 2 1/2 inches in landscape mode (lsrise) and
nearly 3 inches in portrait mode (ptrise). The 190mm WF Ektar
barely covers 8x10, so on 5x7 you get the kind of significant
movements that allow you to shift the horizon nearly to the
bottom of the image.
Donn
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wideangle for 5x7
...
Hi Donn,
You got the numbers right, but I think you have the formulas switched
(you shoud get more rise in landscape mode than in portrait.
Just for grins, I plugged the formulas into Excel and let it crank
through a few of the lenses we've discussed in this thread. Here's the
results:
110mm Super Symmar XL IC = 288mm lsrise = 55mm ptrise = 45mm 150mm APO Sironar-S IC = 231mm lsrise = 17mm ptrise = 13mm 150mm Super Symmar HM IC = 252mm lsrise = 32mm ptrise = 25mm 150mm Super Symmar XL IC = 386mm lsrise = 112mm ptrise = 98mm
So, although the 150mm Super Symmar HM is a lot bigger and more
expensive than the 150mm APO Sironar-S, it gives nearly twice as much
front rise. This is in line with my practical experience using these
two lenses in the field. Although the differences may appear small in
absolute magnitude (about 1/2"), the difference is noticeable (but then
so is the extra weight of the heavier lens).
If you really want to use some radical movements, the Super Symmar XL is
the way to go.
BTW, I have brochures from both Rodenstock and Schneider that have
tables showing the maximum displacements for their lenses on the
variuos film formats. The results from the formulas Donn derived are
within 1mm of those published in the Rodenstock brochure. The slight
differences are either rounding errors, or the fact that they might have
used a holder of slightly differing dimensions. The Schneider brochure
does not list displacements for the 5x7 format (snubbed again). They
list 6x9cm, 9x12cm, 4x5, 13x18cm, 18x24cm and 8x10, but no 5x7. Oh
well, the numbers are easy enough to calculate (but it would be nice if
a major lens manufacturer like Schnedier would at least acknowledge the
5x7 format exists).
Kerry
--
Kerry's Large Format Homepage
http://largeformat.homepage.com
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000
From: "Rupunzel_B" wnstor@prodigy.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wideangle for 5x7
...
*Actually if you want to get really, really precise about this. Account
for
the film holder margins, this shrinks the image area to aprox 4.7 inches x
6.7 inches, making the hypotenuse 8.18 inches or 207.87 mm.
*All this is fine in theory, the real question is how expressive are the
images created..
Bernice
From: "Michael Glover" mike@gloversandy.free-online.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: Aspheric Lens?
Aspherics are now easier to make than they were previously - this is
mainly due to advances in machine tool technology. For directly ground /
polished aspheres a range of precision machines have been developed to
directly grind and polish these surfaces - bear in mind that these are
machines working to sub micron tolerance.
In the USA key players are Moore, Precitec (Pneumo) and other companies
such as CNC Technology. Most of these guys are based aroung the East Coast
(USA), particularly arounf New Hampshire. These machines tend to be more
accurate and probably syill focus on mainlyresearch or military
applications.
however in germany Loh have produced a range of machines that address both
CNC spherical and aspherical production of lenses -they use one machine a
grinder and a polisher and the glass part transfers from machine to
machine on fixed tooling. It is likely that production manufacturers of
optics use these type of machines.
In all cases the hardest part of producing Aspheres is measuring the
surfaces to determine what you have got and get process control.
Interesting new technology inthe polishing area is probably
magnetorheological polishing. This is a process of using a controlable
flexible fluid lap - if you are interested then see the Centre for Optical
Manufacturing site at the university of rochester.
From: "Michael Glover" mike@gloversandy.free-online.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: Aspheric Lens?
The moulded lenses are cast into ultra-high precision moulds that are
chilled. Some post polishing does go on, often with a bag polisher /
flexible lap. This polishing is only for a few seconds as the aim is to
improve surface finish without affecting form accuracy.
Formany consumer lenses straight cast lenses are acceptable as they are
normally cemented against a glass spherical optic on one side - the UV
cement has a similar index and as it fills the small micro gaps the
effects of surface finish is reduced.
Some glass aspheres are also flame polished, but most bag, flexible lap or
sub aperture polished.
But back to the main plot - the hard thing now is to produce the aspheric
mould !!
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Nikon Large Format Website??
photonut1@my-deja.com wrote:
> I do not think that Nikon cares about Large Format lenses. THey have not > added a new lenss in the last ten years. THey are probably milking the > market. Another Smart move by Japanese business men. Why invest in a > shrinking market.
Jerry,
Here's a copy of a post I recently made in the Lusenet LF Forum that
discusses the frequency of new LF lens designs (not counting lenses
specifically targeted at digital applications) from the various
manufacturers. You may be especially interested in the paragraph about
the Nikon LF lenses. It's actaully been at least 14 years since they've
introduced a new LF lens design. Even in a market with long product
life cycles, that's an especially long time to go with NO new designs
(especially given how active they were from 1978 - 1986).
At first glance, it does indeed appear that Schneider has been more
active in coming out with new designs in recent years. Still, the
method they have been using recently has been to spoon feed us one
particular lens at a time rather than announce a whole new line all at
once (as was generally the case in the past). BTW, I'm all for this
method. As users, we benefit by getting each new design as soon as
possible rather then waiting for a whole family of lenses to be designed
and go into production.
Still, in all fairness to the other manufactures, both the Rodenstock
APO Sironar-S and Fujinon CM-W standard series are more recent than the
APO Symmar series. Also, Rodenstock's APO Grandagon line is newer than
Schneider's Super Angulon XL line. So, Fuji and Rodenstock (especially)
haven't exactly been sitting on their hands.
Just keep in mind that large format product cycles are MUCH longer than
35mm and even medium format lenses. Many (actually, most) of today's
"current" product offerings have been in production for at least 15 - 20
years, and several (G Claron, APO Ronar) much longer. Heck, the 90mm f8
Super Angulon has been in production for at least 45 years. And the
Super Symmar HM line still feels "new" to me, but has been around about
15 years (the serial number table at the Schneider web site dates my
120mm SS HM to about 1986). Of course some of these lenses have been
tweaked over the years as new glass types and better cotaings became
available, but the basic designs did not change.
WRT to Nikon specifically, they do indeed seem to be trailing the pack
significantly in new LF product intoductions. Which is sadly ironic
since they are the new kid on the block in the LF lens game, and their
designs, at the time they were introduced, were some of the most
innovative in the industry. Not sure exactly when the LF Nikkors
debuted, but the oldest reference I have is a pamphlet titled " El
Nikkor Enlarging Lenses & Nikkor Large Format Lenses" dated 12/78.
Based on the limited Nikkor LF lens literature I have, the most recent
LF Nikkor lens introductions occured sometime between 1982 and 1986. As
far as I can tell, the pamphlet titled "Nikkor Lenses for Large Format
Cameras" dated 1986 contains all of their current offerings. Several
new models (all T-ED series longer than 360mm, 105mm W - replaced 100mm
W, 360 W, 200 M, the AM Series) were introduced between 1982 and 1986,
but after that flury of introductions, I cannot find
any evidence of any new LF Nikkor lens announcements. As far as I can
tell, all of Nikons LF lens design efforts were introduced over that
very brief eight year period from 1978 - 1986. Looks like last in may
end up being first out. Too bad, many of the LF Nikkors are great
lenses, and with Nikon's resources, it's too bad they haven't put more
effort into their LF lens designs. Their products are still excellent,
and they still have some very unique offerings (the T-ED series with
interchangeable rear elements, for example), but unless they put some
effort forth, they will fall further and further behind Schneider and
Rodenstock (and even Fujinon it appears).
So, I'm thrilled as can be that Schneider continues to innovate with
Rodenstock nipping at their heels. Although Fuji doesn't have an
official North American importer, their lenses are easy enough to get,
and they seem to have a decent presence in their domestic market (and
they also use some of their LF designs for their GX617 system). Given
what a niche market LF is compared to 35mm, APS, digital and medium
format, I think we are truly blessed to have as many options as we do.
Still, I'd hate to see one or more of the current "big four" leave the
LF marketplace.
Kerry
--
Kerry's Large Format Homepage
http://largeformat.homepage.com
[Ed. note: Thanks to Mr. Michael Gudzinowicz and his informative post
below, you have a handy table of longer tele lenses from larger format
cameras now! ;-)]
Date: 6 Aug 2000
From: bg174@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Gudzinowicz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Contriving your own long, long lens
John Hicks jbh@magicnet.net wrote:
> You might look into using some sort of astronomical telescope and a > T-mount onto a camera body (at least one dealer advertises big > T-mounts for MF cameras) or eyepiece projection. > I have _no idea_ of specifics; perhaps Michael G. could help here.
Mike Covington probably would kown which MF cameras and backs could be
adapted to a telescope, and what one would expect for perfmorance. I don't
recall if MF was discussed in his book on amateur astrophotography.
Usually, telescpes are not good choices for terrestial photography.
My first reaction, is to ask if one can get closer to the subject, so a
450-500 mm lens could be used with a MF camera, or 4x5 with rollback or
cropped 4x5 sheet. With 50 lpmm on film, a sharp poster would be possible.
If one can't get closer, I'd be concerned about atomospheric effects which
may degrade the image to such a degree that "sharpness" would not be
obtainable.
If that isn't an issue, I'd go with the slowest/sharpest fine grain slide
film currently available (read the 35 mm groups or nature) and a 600 mm
lens on a 35 mm body. With long lenses, I drape the camera bag strap over
the lens at the tripod mount, and let the bag rest against the two reat
facing tripod legs so it can't move. A couple of bricks can get the weight
up for an occasional foray. A cheap filter easily will degrade the image
with long lenses, so I'd stick with real gels, Heliopan or B&W.; Next, a
first rate 4x5 internegative won't lose any "quality" and probably can
improve the slide, and printing from 4x5 to poster size is easier than
from 35 mm, unless one has the proper lenses optimized for 20X
magnification.
One could also use a long process lens or tele, and crop the 4x5 sheet or
MF image as required. The problems are cost, shutter size, and extension
(usually handled by a black flocked and baffled PVC pipe on a board with
the camera attached).
Some long lenses are:
Fl f/# IC Deg Model E/G Shutter 720 16 215 17 Nikkor T ED 7/4 1 750 14.5 621 45 Docter Apo-Germinar 6/6 3 750 9 621 45 Jenoptik Apo-Germinar 6/6 n.a. 750 9 591 43 Jenoptik Apo-T 4/3 n.a. 760 11 645 46 Nikon Apo-Nikkor 4/4 n.a. 762 12.5 647 46 Goerz APO Artar 4/4 n.a. 762 12.5 585 42 Goerz Red Dot Artar 4/4 n.a. 762 9 585 42 Rank Apotal 4/3 n.a. 762 10 495 36 Wray Apo-Process Lustrar 4/4 n.a. 800 9 614 42 Rodenstock APO Ronar S 6/4 3 800 11 504 35 Schneider APO Tele Xenar HM 5/5 3 800 12 311 22 Nikkor T ED 7/5 3 890 12.5 756 46 Goerz APO Artar 4/4 n.a. 890 12.5 648 40 Goerz Red Dot Artar 4/4 n.a. 900 9 746 45 Jenoptik Apo-Germinar 6/6 n.a. 900 9 709 43 Jenoptik Apo-T 4/3 n.a. 914 10 594 36 Wray Apo-Process Lustrar 4/4 n.a. 965 4.5 780 44 Fujinon Fujinon 6/3 n.a. 1000 19.5 828 45 Docter Apo-Germinar 6/6 3 1000 8 335 19 Schneider Tele Xenar 4/2 3 1067 14 906 46 Goerz APO Artar 4/4 n.a. 1067 14 777 40 Goerz Red Dot Artar 4/4 n.a. 1067 10 693 36 Wray Apo-Process Lustrar 4/4 n.a. 1200 15 1019 46 Goerz APO Artar 4/4 n.a. 1200 11 994 45 Jenoptik Apo-Germinar 6/6 n.a. 1200 15 826 38 Goerz Red Dot Artar 4/4 n.a. 1200 18 316 15 Nikkor T ED 7/5 3 1200 10 793 36 Wray Apo-Process Lustrar 4/4 n.a. 1600 10 1040 36 Wray Apo-Process Lustrar 4/4 n.a. 1780 16 1511 46 Goerz APO Artar 4/4 n.a. 1780 16 1122 35 Goerz Red Dot Artar 4/4 n.a.
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Nikon Large Format Website??
photonut1@my-deja.com wrote:
> Thank you for your response. IS the the addtion of a 80MM Super Symmar > with Aspheric glass the future of LF lenses. > My question arose out of the discussion of Aspheric Glass. It seems that > Schneider is the only house offering the ASpheric Glass in LF > lenses.WHY? If it is superior it would seem that the other mfg's would > be biting at the apple.. Bob Salomon is usally here tellingus of the > virtures of Rodenstock but they do not have aASpheric LF lenses that I > am aware of. WHY? As for Nikon and Fuji they are just milking the > market with price. That is why they are the cheaper model.
Hi Jerry,
Schneider certainly deserves a lot of credit for taking lead in bringing
aspheric elements to the large format marketplace. It was a bold move
on their part. Aspheric elements are much more difficult to produce
than standard spherical elements, especially in the sizes needed for
large format lenses. If you recall, they had a LOT of difficulty with
their yields when the 110 and 150 SS XL when they first came out. They
were announced at Photokina in September, 1996. They did not start
shipping product until the following summer. I placed an order for a
110 SS XL in July of 1997 and had to put my name on a waiting list (and
only one dealer was even willing to do that, the others told me the
delay would be more than six months so they wouldn't even bother taking
my order). I finally received my lens in February 1998. Evidently
Schneider had a huge rejection rate early on for these new, innovative
designs. I imagine that cost them a significant chunk of change.
Still, they persevered and it has paid off in the long run. The lenses
are selling extremely well, and they are not cheap, so hopefully
Schneider has re-couped any early losses they may have had and is now
making a decent enough return on the SS XL series that they will
continue to develop new focal lengths in this series.
As to why nobody else has yet entered the LF aspheric fray, only the
manufacturers can say for sure, but I suspect it has something to do
with the high initial investment and steep learning curve associated
with manufacturing large aspheric elements.
BTW, I don't think Fuji is "just milking the market", at least not yet.
Since they lack an official North American distributor, they don't get
much (if any) coverage in the North American press (although the lenses
are easy enough to get through Badger Graphics). I don't recall exactly
when the CM-W line was introduced, but I believe it was early to mid
1990s. That puts it neck and neck with the APO Sironar-S line as the
newest "standard coverage" lens line from any of the LF manufacturers.
Although the CM-W does not employ aspheric elements, they did vary the
number of air spaces from the standard 6/4 plasmat design (some are 6/5
and some 6/6 designs). I suspect this was done to give the designers
more degrees of freedom in eliminating certain aberrations (but my only
Fujinon literature that covers the CM-W line is in Japanese, so I am
unable to read their marketing prose).
In addition to this departure from the standard 6/4 plasmat, the Fujinon
CM-W line has a couple unique offerings, like the 250mm f6.3 and the
450mm f8. The 250mm f6.3 CM-W is in a Copal #1 shutter, weighs 510g and
takes 67mm filters. This makes it about the same size and weight as
everybody else's standard 210 f5.6 plasmats, and a far sight smaller and
lighter than all the 240mm f5.6 plasmats that are all in Copal #3
shutters. The 450mm f8 CM-W is also quite small for a plasmat this long
with a 520mm image circle. With a filter size of 86mm and a weight of
1140g, it's not exactly a lightweight, but it is significantly smaller
and lighter (and has more coverage) than anybody else's 360mm standard
plasmats (APO Symmar: 112mm filters, 1410g, 491mm IC; 360mm APO
Sironar-S: 112mm filters, 1560g, 468mm IC; 360mm APO Sironar-N: 105mm
filters, 1560g, 435mm IC; 360mm Nikkor W: 95mm filters, 1420g, 494mm
IC). In fact, other than the APO Sironar-N (86mm filters, 1040g, 425mm
IC) it's even smaller and lighter than everybody else's 300mm standard
plasmats (300mm APO Symmar: 105mm filters, 1155g, 425mm IC; 300mm APO
Sironar-S: 100mm filters, 1210g, 448mm IC; 300mm Nikkor W: 95mm filters,
1250g, 420mm IC). So, for about the same size and weight as the
competition's 300mm plasmats, you get a 450mm plasmat with a 520mm image
circle. Nowhere nearly as innovative as Schneider's SS XL series, but
still something nobody else can match. Fuji also has a lot of other
unique designs (450 C, 240 A, etc.) but most of those date back to the
1980s. Only time will tell if Fuji will continue to develop new large
format lens designs. I hope they do. They make some great lenses, and
although not as active as Schneider or even Rodenstock in recent years,
at least they haven't gone totally dormant like Nikon.
Kerry
--
Kerry's Large Format Homepage
http://largeformat.homepage.com
From: jess4203@aol.com (Jess4203)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 22 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: Angulon 90 or Super Ang 90?
> The Angulon barely has enough coverage for 4x5 without any >movements.
John:
I think you may be thinking of the 65 mm Angulon on 4x5 (the circle of
illumination does cover -- image quality may be another thing) or the 165
on 8x10 (covers, barely, @f22). I had a 90 Angulon, and it did cover 4x5.
The figures I have from an old Ron Wisner article give 100 degrees
coverage @f45, which would be 214 mm, near enough to the 216 mm @ f16 for
the old SA F8. The old SA f5.6 covers 235 according to the table I have.
Any of these lenses should have enough movements for most landscape uses
on a field camera. 214mm gives about an inch of rise. Some people use
back tilts for depth of field anyway with WA lenses that barely cover.
The bigger issue would be weight and size if using the lens in the field.
The Angulon gives a usable image at f16 or f22, though not as good as the
SA or other newer lenses, and it is very light compared to the SA and
much, much smaller. Maybe the Grandagon would be light enough with better
optical performance. Then there is price. I would expect the Angulon
could be gotten for $200 (get a late, coated one in a compur shutter, if
possible), an SA f8 for $375. I don't know what the Grandagon goes for.
For small and light, one could also consider a 92 mm Golden WA Dagor or
even an 85 mm Protar V or a 119 mm B&L; Protar IV.
It seems to me that the price differential between the old classic lenses
and the SA's is not as great as it used to be, so maybe they're not as
good a deal as they used to be. IF image quality is paramount, another
$150 for an SA might not be that much to spend. But they are a lot
bigger, and you would have to look close at an 11x14 to see the
difference, I would guess.
HTH,
Roy
From: jess4203@aol.com (Jess4203)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 23 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: Angulon 90 or Super Ang 90?
>I believe the original poster is correct, and the "correction" is incorrect. >A 90mm Angulon will "just" cover 4x5, while a 65mm Angulon will not.
Mr. Faris:
As I stated, I've owned a 90 mm Angulon, and as far as looking at the
ground glass, it did cover with movements on 4x5. Also, as I stated,
published sources give the coverage of the Angulon as 100 degrees at f45.
Also, the 65 mm Angulon, which currently sits in my 4x5 kit, does cover
4x5. You can see this on the ground glass or work it out with the
formula: 2 tan (field angle/2)X focal length. As stated by me and others,
the image quality may not be the greatest at the edges (I haven't really
looked), but there is an image. If you doubt this, my $100 bill awaits
your bet any where near Knoxville, and I will buy the beer (at least the
first three!). Where did you get your belief?
Seeking common ground, it could be that the circle of good definition
(whatever that is, to whoever is interpreting it) indicates that the 90 mm
"just covers" 4x5 and the 65 mm does not. I guess I will just have to get
out my camera and Angulon and loupe.
Best Regards,
Roy
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000
From: jbh@magicnet.net (John Hicks)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Angulon 90 or Super Ang 90?
To clarify, perhaps I should've said that while the 90 Angulon will
cover 4x5 with movements, the circle of good definition isn't big
enough for it to be the first choice unless smallness and light weight
are primary considerations.
Just recently I was testing a 90 Angulon on a 2x3 camera; it didn't
get "good" in the center until f16 and the corners were still a bit
soft, even on 2x3. The corners equalled the center at f22 but contrast
in the center was down from f16.
Although I've had a couple of other 90 Angulons this is the first
one I've really tested, but I think its results were pretty much
comparable to the others.
---
John Hicks
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000
From: Erik Ryberg ryberg@seanet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Angulon 90 or Super Ang 90?
Paul,
Go to http://www.landsinfo.org/gnushack/angulon.html for 5x7 contact
prints
made from a 90 mm Angulon. The lens gets to the corners of a 5x7 plate at
f22 at infinity, but image quality suffers quite a bit.
Erik
Paul Mozell wrote:
> I'm considering the purchase of a Toyo Field. Given the limited > movements on this camera and similar field cameras with short lenses and > the standard bellows, does the 90mm Angulon have sufficient coverage - > or do I really need the Super?
From: Michael Briggs MichaelBriggs@EarthLink.net
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Angulon 90 or Super Ang 90?
Paul Mozell wrote:
> I'm considering the purchase of a Toyo Field. Given the limited > movements on this camera and similar field cameras with short lenses and > the standard bellows, does the 90mm Angulon have sufficient coverage - > or do I really need the Super?
Lens design and manufacture has improved in recent decades. The biggest
improvement has been in wide-angle lenses. Unless you are pressed for
money or light-weight is critical to you, I would recommend a more
modern wide angle lens, from Fuji, Nikon, Rodenstock or Schneider.
Take a look at the lens tests at
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html
The 90 mm Angulons test quite well at the center, but not so well at the
edge. There is quite a bit of variation from Angulon to Angulon in the
edge performance. The better ones are pretty good. The one from the
1950's that they tested is a real dog. If you do get an Angulon, try to
get a newer one and maybe a Linhof selected one. The Super Angulon
they tested didn't do very well in the corners either. For excellence
even in the corners, take a look at the numbers for the Nikkor-SW 90mm
f8.
--Michael
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000
From: "Wayne D" wdewitt@snip.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: 58 XL
Hi Roy;
I came across your post in the Large Format newsgroup where you
mentioned the 58 XL. I know what lust is - I don't have your affliction
for extreme wide-angles, but I have recently ordered a 110 XL and a 150
XL. I am Emailing various persons whom I've come in contact with on the
forums during the past year about a vendor that I've found. If you use
Schneider or Rodenstock lenses, or B&W; or Heliopan filters or adapter
rings, I've found a supplier in Germany who is easy to work with and has
prices that are as low as 50% of what we are paying in the U.S. (I'm
saving $2700.00 over B&H;'s prices on the two lenses), he even beats Robert
White's prices (by 10 - 20% avg.). His prices on Heliopan step-up rings is
fantastic (70% less than B&H; - I'm throwing all of my aluminum ones away,
or dumping them on Ebay :-) ). His name is Christoph Greiner, he speaks
English very well. His Email address is: chr.greiner.photo@t-online.de .
He does not have a website yet.
He is a very reputable dealer, and is the German rep. for Walker and Ebony
cameras. Send him a request for a quote on the 58mm - you'll be pleasantly
surprised.
Regards,
Wayne DeWitt
"M. J. Rossano"
mrossano@friend.ly.net wrote:
>Here's a question that I've been hoping someone could answer in this group. > Among the three makers with such offerings, Schneider, Rodenstock and >Nikon, who seems to have the best macro lens in the 180mm to 210mm focal >length range?
Indoors with absolute control over vibration and lighting there might
be a difference in rare cases. Outdoors you will find that
diffraction, subject movement, and vibration are the limiting factors
and you will not find the lenses to be very much of a factor. The
depth of field is so small that using F/stops that compute to f/11 or
greater will usually be necessary. { compute to = bellows extension +
marked f/stop. }. A much cheaper lens such as a G Claron or Apo Symmar
will produce excellent results. I have no trouble resolving celia and
pollen grains with much less expensive lenses that will produce
excellent 30 x 40 inch prints in color or B&W.; Even in most studio
situations vibration { harmonic } and diffraction will be your
limiting factors. Lens contrast will be different between different
manufacturers and the coatings will produce subtle differences but
even the old Artars and Ronars are diffraction limited and not in any
way inferior to many of the newest lenses. If you shoot flat subjects
such as copy work then you might see a difference using the newer
lenses at f/8 - f/11 including bellows factor. By f/16 you are again
treading on diffraction limits.
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000
Xref: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: "Dan Smith, Photographer" shooter@brigham.net
Subject: Re: Large Format Macro Lenses - Who Is Tops?
"M. J. Rossano"
wrote:
> >Here's a question that I've been hoping someone could answer in this group. > > Among the three makers with such offerings, Schneider, Rodenstock and > >Nikon, who seems to have the best macro lens in the 180mm to 210mm focal > >length range?
Having seen direct tests on original chromes comparing the Macro Sironar
with a normal Apo Sironar of the same focal length (210 I believe), for
life size and 1:3 to 3:1, the range the Macro Sironar was optimized for,
it was cleaner and clearly the better lens. Once you got above 1:4 or 1:5
there was little difference & picking one or the other was difficult if
not impossible.
The macro lens had the edge in pure macro work. The images shot were high
reflection jewelry at and more than lifesize with an 8x10 Sinar on one of
the Ektachrome daylight films using black line studio lighting.
If there is much difference in the major makers macro lenses I would be
surprised. But the difference in a dedicated macro design versus the
finest normal lens design available at the time was visible to those who
viewed them, both experienced photographers and casual viewers.
dan smith
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Vignetting on 65mm Super Angulon
"Jerry Hartleben" jerrycam@home.com wrote:
>I'm testing a used 65mm Schneider Super Angulon and one thing I >find is a pronounced darkening (vignetting) of the corners of the exposed >negative (primarily the bottom left corner). This is not just the small >corner cut-off caused by lens tilts, which can happen with a lens that has a >coverage of 170mm. What I'm describing is a graduated overall darkening >that seems to >increase with stop, f32 is noticeable, f45 is pronounced and darkens about a >third into the picture. Is this a characteristic of the wide lens (all wide >lenses including 65mm Super-Angulon) in the 4x5 format or is this a problem >with this particular used lens?
This isn't normal. The fall off of a lens due to the geometry of the
light path is completely symmetrical. The vignetting from the lens
mounting should be eliminated at about two or three stops down from
maximum, depending on the mount and angle of coverage of the lens.
Look at the lens from the corners of the image to get some clue as to
what is causing the vignetting. The iris will be somewhat cat's eye
shaped when viewed away from the optical axis. When there is
mechanical vignetting the one edge of the visible aperature will be
cut off by part of the lens mount. Normally, this vignetting is
eliminated when only the iris is is visible at the corner, not the
body of the lens.
Fall off from either cause should be symmetrical. If one corner is
worse than others it suggests that there is a tilted element in the
lens or, possibly, damage to the iris diaphragm, that should be
immediately visible on examination.
The rate of fall off due to optical geometry is cos^4 theta, where
theta is the angle of the image point under consideration to the
center of the image, or the optical axis. Some wide angle lenses are
designed with what is called a tilting entrance pupil. This eliminates
one of the cos factors and reduces fall off to approximately cos^3
theta. You can usually spot these lenses because the iris seems to get
larger as the lens is viewed off center. Even this type of lens would
not behave as you have described, the fall off, though less, would
still be symmetrical and mechanical vignetting would be eliminated
after stopping down two or three stops (maybe more for some WA
lenses).
I suspect you have either a tilted element or, perhaps, cement which
is going bad. Tilted elements can be spotted by shining a small
flashlight into the lens and looking at its reflections when the lens
is turned. The reflections should be completely stationary. If they
move, or orbit one another, you have a tilted or off-center element.
Shining the flashlight _through_ the lens will often turn up
cemented surfaces that have gone bad. Modern lenses (meaning lenses
made since about 1950) are mostly cemented with synthetic cement. It
can form bubbles between the elements, or get an "orange peel" sort of
appearance, or sometimes, get cloudy. All will be visible with a
fairly strong flashlight.
Whatever the design of the lens the fall off will be progressive as
the angle from the center of the image is increased. Very wide angle
lenses have very large fall off. The fall off can be corrected, or
largely corrected by a "center filter". This is a filter which is
graduated in density being densest at the center and falling off
gradually toward the edges. When used on a lens which is stopped down
enough, it will tend to reduce the ratio of illumination of the
corners vs: the center. In principle, the filter is an "obstructive
stop" and should have some effect on the resolution of the lens, but
I've never seen in the literature about the degree to which this
happens to practical lenses and isn't worth worrying about.
Center filters are expensive becaue they are relatively hard to make.
They must be neutral density over the range of colors to which film is
sensitive and have the right rate of fall off. Both tend to require
expensive methods of manufacture to get right.
Check your lens, again, its symptoms are not normal behavior.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: 3 Oct 2000
From: bg174@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Gudzinowicz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wollensak Lens Info
"Thom Tapp" ttapp1@bellsouth.net wrote:
>Does anyone know of a site where information is given about large format >Wollensak lenses? I know about a couple which list one or two, but is there >one which compares the Wollensak line against others? Or, is there a site >that gives specifications on the Wollensak line?
Generally, Wollensak made good lenses for their time (designs and coatings
have changed a lot) and compare favorably to similar lenses by other
manufacturers.
Some specs follow: "Modern" lenses: FL f/# Circle Deg Model E/G 65 6.8 137 93 Wollensak Raptar WA n.a. 75 4.5 94 64 Wollensak Raptar Ser 2 4/3 90 6.8 190 93 Wollensak Raptar WA n.a. 90 4.5 112 64 Wollensak Raptar Ser 2 4/3 101 4.5 126 64 Wollensak Raptar Ser 2 4/3 108 6.8 228 93 Wollensak Raptar WA n.a. 114 4.5 142 64 Wollensak Raptar Ser 2 4/3 127 4.5 159 64 Wollensak Raptar Ser 2 4/3 135 4.5 169 64 Wollensak Raptar Ser 2 4/3 159 12.5 379 100 Wollensak Extreme WA Ser 3a n.a. 162 4.5 202 64 Wollensak Raptar Ser 2 4/3 190 4.5 237 64 Wollensak Raptar Ser 2 4/3 203 4.5 136 37 Wollensak Raptar Tele n.a. 210 4.5 262 64 Wollensak Raptar Ser 2 4/3 240 4.5 300 64 Wollensak Raptar Ser 2 4/3 254 6 237 50 Wollensak Portrait Veritar n.a. 254 4.5 170 37 Wollensak Raptar Tele n.a. 302 4.5 377 64 Wollensak Raptar Ser 2 4/3 355 8 331 50 Wollensak Portrait Veritar n.a. 381 4.5 255 37 Wollensak Raptar Tele n.a. Pre-1939 lenses: Model f/# FL range Deg. Type Wollensak Anastigmat 5 7.5 3.5 to 13 in. n.a. General Wollensak Extreme W.A. 12.5 4.5-13" 95 Wide Angle Wollensak Varium 3.5 14 to 19 in. 44 Portrait soft Wollensak Velostigmat 1a 6.3 4.5 to 17.5 in. 63 Convertible Wollensak Velostigmat 2 4.5 3.5 to 16 in. 53 General Wollensak Velostigmat 3 9.5 4.5 to 9 in. 90 General Wollensak Velostigmat 4 6.3 3.5 to 12 in. 60 General Wollensak Velostigmat Process 10 10.25-30" 50 General Wollensak Verito 4 5 to 18 in. 53 Portrait Soft Wollensak Vesta 5 6 to 14 in. n.a. Portrait Wollensak Vitex 3.8 10 to 20 in. n.a. Portrait Wollensak Voltas 8 5 to 16 in. 53 General
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000
From: "David Glos" david.glos@uc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Close up lens
About a year and a half ago, a good friend in
pathology, got tired of the rather crappy performance
of the Ysaron (SP?) on his Polaroid MP4 copy stand. The
Ysaron was terribly soft in the corners (I suspect its
NOT truly 'flat field') , even at f/11-16, where he
used it most.
Since his department has some bucks to
play with, they bought a Schneider 120/5.6 Macro
Symmar. Wow, what a piece of glass. Just for grins, we
loaded up some holders with 4x5 tech pan, and shot (at
around 1:1) the cover of the 99 Kodak Professional
Material catalog, which is just a B+W scene of a car in
some weeds. Under a 40x stereo microscope, every
lithography dot was sharp across the field, and you
could clearly see defects in the dot patterns, where
the ink didn't quite lay down correctly. That was at
f/11, although, similar results were achieved at f/8
and f/16.
Although this is hardly a scientific test, I
can assure you, the Ysaron was positively dreadful in
comparison. Since that simple round of tests, the
Symmar has been earning its keep on a weekly basis,
shooting 4x5 and 120 (6x7) copy work, generally B+W,
with absolutely wonderful results. I can't imagine a
better lens.
For far less dollars, you might find a quality
6-element enlarging lens will meet your expectations.
When we were looking at the Macro Symmar, we called the
US Scheider operation, and they mentioned we could
achieve similar results by front mounting a 150/5.6
Componon-S in a Copal LF leaf shutter (I forget the
exact shutter size required), and Schneider even sold
an adapter ring (I think it was less than $50, but had
to be ordered directly from Schneider) for doing just
that. If you are careful, you might be able to find a
used Componon-S or EL Nikkor for under $300 and send it
off to Steve Grimes for mounting, for a total cost
under $600.
As an aside, we first tried to get the Macro Nikkor,
due to its significantly better price, but could not
locate one in stock anywhere (B+H, and even Calumet). I
don't know if they are any easier to find now.
David Glos
yuvalsion@my-deja.com wrote
>Advise is in need >I need close up lens for ratio from 3:1 to 1:3 on 4x5 or 6x9 negative. >I will use it to copy small photographs, B&W; and colour. >How about the Nikor AM 120mm ? Nikon define the lens performance up to >1:1, how will it perform at infinity and other ratios of coping? >How about other lenses of other manufacturers? >I thank you all in advance. >Yuval Sion
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: philtobias@aol.com (Phil Tobias)
Date: Wed Nov 22 2000
[1] Re: Bargain 90mm for 4x5????
The $300 that some of the older super angulons go for
is even a bit to pricey right now.
A clean, late-model regular (non-"Super") Angulon can often be found in
the
$150-200.00 range.
These are small and light, and are capable of very nice photos.
Good luck. ...pt
www.philiptobias.com
means Business/Communications
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: "Thom Tapp" ttapp1@bellsouth.net
[1] Re: Bargain 90mm for 4x5????
Date: Wed Nov 22 2000
I recently purchased a 90mm Wollensak lens on eBay for $78.00. It covers
4X5 with some movement, and has given me very good results. I usually do
landscapes, and stop down to f/22 or f/32, but I have some really crisp
negatives with it. I can't say what another one might do, but I like mine!
Thom Tapp
--
Thom Tapp - Kingston TN
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: PHOTO-TECH photo-tech@home.com
[1] Re: Bargain 90mm for 4x5????
Date: Thu Nov 23 2000
>THat sound's good. I'll look for a Wollensack > >-Josh
Best buy is still an Ilex Accugon. It's identical to
the first (read f/8) SA as far as I can tell. Picked mine up
for $175 in mint with an excellent shutter.
Regards,
John S. Douglas
Photographer Web Master Darkroom Wizard
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: joneil@multiboard.com (Joseph O'Neil)
[1] Re: Bargain 90mm for 4x5????
Date: Thu Nov 23 2000
"Joshua L. Wein" Jayelwin@Home.Home.com.com wrote:
>THat sound's good. I'll look for a Wollensack
I've got a Wollensack 90mm, in Alphax shutter. It is dim to
focus een during daytime, it has little moevment,s but stopped down to
F22 or better it si very shapr, and my negatives are quite crisp. For
the small amount of money I paid for it, I am quite happy with it.
on the plus shide it si very small,a nd easy to travel with.
joe
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" K.Thalmann@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: landscape book
Liz wrote:
> > OK Liz, you've got me baffled on this one. How, exactly, are Shaw's > > equipment recommendations American? I though he used Nikons, a Fuji 617 > > and occasionally a 4x5 Linhof (or was it Toyo - don't have the books > > handy at the moment). > > Tripods etc. and other accessories. > Certainly in sunny Scotland, I can't find a dealer who's heard of Gitzo, for > example.
But, Gitzo is a Franch brand, not American (and Manfrotto is Italian and
Arca Swiss - well Swiss). If you can't find Gitzo products locally it's
a problem with your regional distributor, not because they are American
products. Anyway, in this global marketplace, it should be possible to
get just about any piece of equipment your heart desires.
> The only medium=format user Iknow personally seems to change his entire gear > about every year-to-18 months.
I was referring to the frequency the manufacturers change their models,
not the indecision of a particular user. In the large format market,
there are entire years that go by without a single new lens being
announced by ANY manufacturer. Many of the lenses still in current
production were introduced decades ago (in fact, at least one model,
the Rodenstock Imagon was designed over a century ago). I'm not saying
technological innovation doesn't happen in large format (take Schneiders
Super Symmar XL aspheric lenses, for example), it just occurs at a MUCH
slower pace with a lot less churning of model numbers and feature sets
than the 35mm marketplace.
> Indeed, which is why the problem with recommending only one book, especially > if it's to be bought 'online'. > All the books I have I bought 'sight (virtually) unseen' from my bookclub. > If I was going to buy *one* book (as an 'only' book), I'd want to browse > them carefully first to see whose pictures I most admired, > and whose style of teaching I found most helpful. > For example, I like Heather Angel's explanations, but I don't always > like her pictures. > > I do rather think that if I browse in a bookshop, it is a bit 'cheeky' to > order online. > That again is obviously my own 2p. > It's how I ended up getting the Audobon NA Mammals book from Amazon (no > shops in Glasgow seemed to stock any NA mammals books), and don't like it > (photos rather than drawings; my personal preference is for drawings in a > field guide)!
Good points. One other way to browse before you buy is to frequent your
local library. Not sure how the libraries are set-up in England, but
here in the states, even if your local library doesn't stock a
particular title, they can get it for you through inter-library loan.
That way, you can check it out and if you do decide to buy online, do so
with a guilt free consious. I do still hit my local Barnes & Noble and
Borders about once a week just to browse for new titles, and if
something grabs my attention, I buy it on the spot. That's how I ended
up with Charlie Waite's book. Again, a different style of both
photography and teaching than either Shaw or Fielder. I still
personally prefer the Fielder book followed by Shaw's, but that's a
matter of personal preference/bias. What I do like about Waite's book
is that it was fresh compared to most of the other books I see on the
subject. That alone made it worth the price. I'm sure a lot of it had
to do with the fact that many of the subjects were unfamiliar to me
(places I haven't visited personally, or seen before in a book). But,
that's a good thing, it made me look more closely at the images rather
than just say: "Oh, there's another image of Monumnet Valley".
I think we both agree that this whole notion of limiting your reading to
a single book or a single author is a bit absurd. This is especially
true given the amount we all spend on equipment, travel, film etc. I
even learn from books I don't like, or books I think are chock full of
bad photography. I generally don't buy these, but at least they help me
differentiate between what I like and what I dislike.
Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann Large Format Images of Nature
A Few of My Images Online at: http://www.thalmann.com/
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000
From: Pam Niedermayer pam_pine@cape.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Focusing Mount for 65mm f8 Super Angulon
Lens & Repro: 65 f8 Super Angulon,helical focus mt. $650.
Also, the Graphex XL has a helical mount built into the body, may be a
lot cheaper to buy a body.
And on it goes. I just did a Google search on "super angulon helical".
Pam
David Bracher wrote:
> I'm looking for the above item. The lens is in the old '00' size > Technika > shutter. I'm not sure whether this item was ever even made by > Schneider. > Currently available production is for the newer Compur 0 from Schneider. > > Does anyone know if this item was ever manufactured ? > > I'm building up a custom Wide Angle 4x5. It may be necessary for me to > get a newer production 65mm Super Angulon w/ the newer shutter. Does > anyone have any suggestions for viewfinders for this lens and/or for a > 75mm > Super Angulon as well ? > > Thanks.
--
Pamela G. Niedermayer
Pinehill Softworks Inc.
http://www.pinehill.com
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000
From: Bob Salomon bob@hpmarketingcorp.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Focusing Mount for 65mm f8 Super Angulon
Perhaps a more modern 65 would be better. Both optically and for the
mount.
For instance the helical for the 65mm Grandagon N has a list price of
$380.00 and dealers discount this price.
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Seagull View Camera
Where did you find them for sale?
The reason the lenses are expensive is that the Chinese don't make any
good big shutters so they use Copal. The shutter ends up being most of
the cost.
Bob
From: "Jack Casner" jackinkc@home.com Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 To: contax@photo.cis.to Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Seagull View CameraSome model list "Hardwood" construction while others specify Teak. The bodies are inexpensive - by comparison to other wooden cameras - but the lenses are pretty expensive - by comparison to other SEAGULL products. ....
From: sanking@clemson.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Process Nikkors
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000
> Bear in mind that some process leneses ans some APO process lenses > aren't all that good at infinity. Most are corrected for 1:1 as > they are highly corrected for colour seperation work. But they were > not designed for infinity! > > Darrell Larose > Victoria, BC, Canada
I use two of the Apo-Nikkors for landscape work, a 600mm and a 420mm.
Although corrected for 1:1 they perform very well at infinity. In fact,
once you stop them down to the typical apertures used in large format
work (f/22 and higher) their performace is very close, if not equal, to
that of lenses designed for general purpose photography.
BTW, S.K. Grimes mounted my 600mm in an Ilex #5 shutter. Last time I
looked he had it pictured, along with other remounts, on his web site.
One of the disadvantages of this type of lens is its limited coverage.
Even though they throw a very large circle of illumination (over 70
degrees) good coverage is limited to around 50 degrees or less.
Sandy King
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Ross Xpres lens
you wrote:
>Does anyone here know the truth about the Ross Xpres lens, is it a four >element, three groups lens like the Tessar, or a five element three groups >design like the Heliar? I got one on my Ensign Selfix 820 camera. > >/Patric
There are two lenses of this name.
The Ross Xpres is a five element lens. It is similar to a Tessar but the
rear component consists of three cemented elements rather than two as in
the Tessar.
There is also the Wide Angle Xpres, made for aerial survey work. This
lens is a Plasmat type, similar to many current large-format lenses. The
Plasmat is derived from the Dagor by splitting off the inner positive
element and air spacing it. This results in additional degrees of freedom
for the designer, the practical effect of which is the substantial
reduction of zonal spherical aberration, an inherant problem with Dagor
type lenses.
The W.A. Expres is covered under USP 1,1777,262 and BP 195,519 Hasselkus,
et.al. assigned to Ross. I don't have the USP for the Xpres but the BP is
29,637. I don't know what was attempted or claimed for its design. The
Tessar patent would still have been in effect at the time the Xpres was
patented so it may have been no more than an attempt to get around the
Zeiss patent, as was the Gundlach Radar, another Tessar type with three
elements in the rear component.
Zeiss, and others, also had designs for Tessar types with three cemented
elements in the rear (the Biotessar for example) in an attempt to improve
correction for fast lenses. Evidently other generic types proved more
profitable.
The Heliar has cemented elemts at each end, so, while it has five
elements, the arrangement is different than in the Xpres. Hans Harting, of
Voigtlander, derived the Heliar from the Cooke Triplet in an attempt to
improve the correction of the triplet. His original lens was symmetrical
with the negative elements facing outward. This was not a very sucessful
lens so he tried reversing the powers of the outside elements with more
success. This lens was originally called the Dynar, but the name was
abandoned by Voigtlander in favor of Heliar. Later designers abandoned
symmetry and got better corrections. The type has never been very popular.
Other than Voigtlander, who held the original patents, about the only
other lenses of this type made widely were the Dallmeyer Pentac designed
by Lionel Booth and a series of lenses designed by Fred Altman of Kodak.
Altman's lenses include an f/3.5 lens for the Medalist camera, a similar
f/3.7 lens for general use on 2x3 press cameras, and a series of enlarging
lenses sold as Enlarging Ektar. These lenses have a reputation of being
exceptionally sharp.
Altman's design is covered in USP 2,279,384
As a side note, any US patent can be gotten on line from the US Patent
and Trade Mark office site at http://www.uspto.gov They are in the form of
images in Class-4 TIFF files. The best plug-in viewer is "Alternatiff" you
will have to do a web search to find it, its free.
The Wang Imaging viewer built into Windows will read the files off-line
and print them. The Wang program is no longer available free from
Microsoft but its in most editions of Win 95 and 98. Search the Windows
folder for it. The USPTO now has all patents from 1790 on line but older
patents can be searched only by patent number. These things were probably
scanned with a FAX machine so the quality is not always good. That also
accounts for the strange TIFF format, its what is used for FAX.
I don't know if British patents are on line anywhere.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001
From: drdagor@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Process Nikkors
You are right. Most of the Process Nikkors are being removed from
Process Cameras as more and more printing plants go digital or to giant
Xerox type machines. You can also get Red Dot Artars from this same
source.
The Big Nikkors have been going for as little as $0.50 per mm (Like
$240 for a 480 lens.) That's a bargain. You can mount them in a
shutter, but at f22 or 32 it is practical to use the lens cap as a
shutter.
My only caution about old process camera lenses is that you need to
check condition very carefully. The print shops were often dirty,
dusty places and some even had corrosives in the air that damaged the
lenses. I had a big Nikkor that was pitted on the front element
because of something the print shop that originally owned it had in the
air.
Hope this helps.
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000
From: sanking@clemson.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Process Nikkors
> Bear in mind that some process leneses ans some APO process lenses > aren't all that good at infinity. Most are corrected for 1:1 as > they are highly corrected for colour seperation work. But they were > not designed for infinity! > > Darrell Larose > Victoria, BC, Canada
I use two of the Apo-Nikkors for landscape work, a 600mm and a 420mm.
Although corrected for 1:1 they perform very well at infinity. In fact,
once you stop them down to the typical apertures used in large format
work (f/22 and higher) their performace is very close, if not equal, to
that of lenses designed for general purpose photography.
BTW, S.K. Grimes mounted my 600mm in an Ilex #5 shutter. Last time I
looked he had it pictured, along with other remounts, on his web site.
One of the disadvantages of this type of lens is its limited coverage.
Even though they throw a very large circle of illumination (over 70
degrees) good coverage is limited to around 50 degrees or less.
Sandy King
[Ed.note: you have been WARNED! ;-)]
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Meyer Lens Question
MJMurray murraymj1@cinci.rr.com wrote:
>Does anyone have any information about the Carl Meyer 12"/4.5 lens. I >assume from it's size that it should cover 8x10. > > I just picked one up in a bundle of stuff and I'm trying to decide if >it's worth the cost of getting the shutter cleaned up and adjusted. > >Thanks for the help. > >Martin
CARL Meyer lenses were made by Burke & James of Chicago out of
(probably) surplus parts from German lenses following WW-2. Its a made
up name, a combination of Carl Zeiss and Hugo Meyer, both very
respectible optical manufacturers, neither of which had anythign to do
with these lenses. I beleive they are Tessar types but have no idea of
quality because it varies from lens to lens.
This was about the same time as B&J; was selling "Berlin" Dagors,
made of surplus parts. These are terrible lenses. Note that these are
not C.P.Goerz - Berlin Dagors, which are the genuine article. I don't
think they say Goerz on them anywhere. I have no idea who actually
made the elements used for the Carl Meyer lenses.
A 12" Tessar will cover 8x10 with just a little over. If you are
lucky this might turn out to be a good lens, but in general CARL Meyer
lenses should be avoided.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001
Subject: Re: Brass Barell Lens Recommendations
BenMarks wrote:
> Does anyone have a recommendation for a brass barrel lens with plenty of flare > and/or coma wide open? I recently saw a (dented!) Voitlander Heliar on e-bay > that fit my needs (but the price zoomed out of all proportion to anything I > would consider paying). > > Lens should cover at least 5x7 wide open (but preferably 8x10). > > Personal anecdotes welcome!
Try playing around with close-up lenses. Use two of the same diopter back
to back to the get rid of the barrel distortion. You can vary the spacing
and put an aperture in the middle. Or just tape one on to an empty
shutter..
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com
From: davidlindq@aol.com (Davidlindq)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 06 Feb 2001
Subject: Re: Angulon vs Ext Wide Angle Wollensak
vilntfluid@aol.com
(VILNTFLUID) writes:
>I don't what the specs on a WA Dagor are however, I use mine on an 8x10 and >haven't seen any vignetting or light falloff unless significant movements. >In >that respect I was slightly and unpleasantly surprised but in retrospect it >should have been obvious.
Looking at some old ads and buying guides I have, the Wide Angle Dagor was
claimed to cover 100 degrees at f/45 (or a 10X12 negative for the 6 1/2
inch focal length). At one time this lens was also called the "Super
Dagor". This name was still used in a 1950 Pop. Photo. buying guide. A
1956 buying guide calls this series the Wide Angle Dagor, and still lists
100 degree coverage or a 10X12 maximum negative size for the 6 1/2 inch
lens.
An undated brochure I received from Goerz about 1969-70 describes the Wide
Angle Dagor "...with full coverage of more than 90 degrees." And it
indicates the 6 1/2 inch lens covers an 8 X 10 negative at f/45. Another
piece of Goerz literature I have dated 1-10-63 gives a recommended
negative size for the 6 1/2 inch W.A. Dagor of 8X10 when used at f/45. But
this same sheet says the "maximum diagonal" for this lens is 15.5 inches
which would be 100 degree coverage and would very nearly cover 10X12
(diagonal of 15.62 inches). So Goerz seems to have become a bit more
conservative in what they say this lens will cover without being really
explicit about it. Arguably this was not an unreasonable approach if this
lens had a rather larger field of illumination than its field of good
definition, since "good definition", if you'll pardon the pun, is arguably
hard to define.
David Lindquist
Davidlindq@aol.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000
Subject: Re: compur shutter controls
"Wayne D" wdewitt@snip.net wrote:
>There were a few "delay" schemes depending on the size of the bulbs and >their manner of manufacture. The 12-20 millisecond delay that I mentioned I >believe was the most current standard, older lenses may have longer delays - >I'm not sure. In any case if "X" is not available it's safe to assume that >there is a delay inherent in the design and electronic flash shouldn't be >used. Steve Grimes would be the person to ask if that delay can be bypassed >or if installation in a new shutter is necessary. Thanks to Steve I now know >why my 90 Angulon acts so weird. > >Regards, >Wayne
I think all of the Synchro-Compur shutters have synch which is
settable at either X (no delay, for strobe) or M (20 millisecond delay
for bulbs). If its a synch shutter without a switch of some sort it is
probably X synch. You can check this easily by hooking a strobe flash
to it and firing it. If its X synch the shutter will be completely
open during the flash. If its bulb synch the strobe will be fired
before the blades even start to open so you will see them completely
closed during the flash.
Virtually any Compur or Compound shutter can be modified for X synch
and many were.
There were also Class-F flash bulbs intended for 5 millisecond
delay. Some shutters have a separate F setting for them. Class-F bulbs
can be used with X synch shutters at slow speeds but strobe can not be
used on any shutter with delay since the shutter contacts will fire
the strobe before the shutter mechanism is started. Built-in flash
synch is essentially similar to a self-timer, in that it delays
tripping the shutter for a time, in the case of a synch unit, for only
a fraction of a second. You will find that in Kodak Flash Supermatic
shutters the flash delay is actually a modification of the self timer
found in non-synch Supermatics (but too much changed to convert one to
the other.
X synch is provided by a simple contact which closes at the point
where the shutter blades just reach fully open position when opening.
Again, X synch can be used for flash bulbs where the shutter speed is
slow enough for the shutter to still be fully open when the bulb
reaches full intensity. However, you loose the ability to control
exposure with shutter speed when working this way. The guide number
for the bulb is the maximum guide number given for "open flash"
conditions.
Some early post-war Compur shutters were X synch only, as seen on
early post war Rolleiflex cameras. The X only Rollei was made for less
than one year before the M-X model came out so I suspect X only Compur
shutters are pretty rare.
Flash bulbs are still available used, and some are available new
from an outfit in Irland, however, they are pretty expensive. Flash
bulbs have tremendous light output despite the small size and can be
very useful for some purposes.
A note on solenoids. Flash bulbs came on the market around 1931. At
first there was no very good method of synchronizing them. The earlier
flash powder had been used "open flash", that is, the shutter was
opened, the flash powder set off, and the shutter closed. After a time
various flash guns, or "synchronizers" came on the market. The type
which became most successful employed an electrical solenoid which was
coupled to the shutter, usually being mounted on the lens board near
it (there were others mounted on the flash gun and coupled with a
cable release). The design of the solenoid's magnetic circuit was such
as to delay its actuation for the right interval to allow the flash
bulb to come up to peak output.
The solenoid and bulb were energized simultaneously by pushing a
button on the flash gun. Solenoid adjustment could be finicky and they
were subject to error as the batteries ran down. Sometimes if the
batteries were not quite fresh the solenoid would trip the shutter but
would pull the voltage down enough so that the bulb would not fire.
Sometimes the bulb fired but the shutter was not completely tripped.
Special "photo" batteries, with somewhat higher than normal voltage
were sold for flash guns with solenoids so that the bulbs would fire
reliably even when the solenoid pulled the voltage down a little.
Solenoids are still useful for remote tripping of shutters, and good
ones are pretty reliable for synchronizing flash bulbs.
The ability to remote-trip the shutter accounts for the persistence of
solenoids on press cameras even after fully synchronized shutters
became common.
The first shutters with built-in synch were made by Ilex c.the mid
1940's but synch shutters did not become common until after WW-2.
Some synch shutters, like the Ilex and Kodak require cocking the
delay mechanism separately from the shutter itself. Synchro Compur
shutters do not, nor do X-Synch shutters.
The common Kodak Flash Supermatic shutter _is_ synchronized for
strobe as well as bulbs. There are two sets of contacts in it. One is
operated by the delay mechanism, the other by a pin on the blade ring.
The strobe contacts are connected through a 5K resistor to keep them
from firing flash bulbs but most strobe units have sensitive enough
triggers to be tripped. To use the shutter for X simply connnect the
strobe trigger to the flash connector. Do NOT cock the flash delay.
The shutter should fire strobe units just fine.
I understand (but do not know for certain) that some early Flash
Supermatic shutters, the kind with the ASA bayonet connector rather
than the two pin connector, may not have the strobe contacts. However,
Kodak used the bayonet connector for a long time, even on the Compur
shutters they used after discontinuing the Supermatic, so this may not
be true.
Its possible to set the delay of a solenoid by using an oscilloscope
with calibrated sweep (they all are calibrated now) by connecting the
sweep trigger to the bulb connector and watching the trace through the
shutter. Use single-sweep, and set the thing so its open when the
shutter opens at the 20 millisecond point. Use the fastest shutter
speed.
>"Thomas Baumann" baumann@nscl.msu.edu wrote >> Hello, >> >> thanks to Wayne for the flash-info. Is it right to assume that older >> shutters without the X-M switch are intended to work with bulbs, i.e. >> have the M setting for the flash? >> >> Thanks to Steve for the in-depth info on Synchro-Compur shutters, and >> for the pictures! This is very valuable information since I always >> wondered why the same button works as a self-timer on one shutter and >> has a different function on the other! >> >> Have a nice day, >> >> Thomas. >> >> skgrimes wrote: >> > >> > Synchro Compur #0 MX shutters marked "Synchro-Compur-P" have the press >focus >> > feature and were intended for use on view type cameras. Synchro Compur >#0 >> > MX shutters without the "P" have a self timer instead of the Preview >feature >> > and were intended for use on ordinary roll film non viewing cameras. (A >view >> > feature on a non viewing camera would only screw things up) There is a >> > picture of the two different but same looking versions at >> > http://www.skgrimes.com/2compurs.jpg The button in question is at 12 >> > O'Clock on the shutter to the right. The shutter on the left is the >Press >> > focus version (shown with the blades opened) and the one on the right is >the >> > Self timer version shown with the blades closed. >> > >> > This only applies to the #0 sized shutters. The #00 shutter of this vin >tage >> > does not have press focus. The #1 sized shutters have both press focus >and >> > self timer in all MX models. >> > >> --------------------------- >> > "Wayne D" >> > > If you'd actually exposed film with the flash you would have found >out. >> > > The >> > > "M" is meant for flashbulbs - it closes the circuit 12-20 milliseconds >> > > before releasing the shutter - allowing the bulb to begin burning >before >> > > exposing the film. You need to use "X" with electronic flash. >
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000
Subject: Re: Older Shutters
"Brian Ellis" bellis60@earthlink.net wrote:
>Am I correct in assuming that older shutters with the number 4 or 5 (e.g. >Betax #5, Ilex #4) are even larger than a Copal 3 or is there no necessary >relationship between modern numbers and these older higher numbers?
Correct. There is no direct relationship between the numbers used by
manufacturers of older shutters other than larger numbers were larger
size shutters. Probably the largest stock shutters were the #5 Ilex
Universal, and the #5 Compound, both of which had about 2.5 inch
maximum clear aperture, but they are not the same size, and lenses
and adaptors do not interchange. The #5 Wollensak, is almost, but not
quite as large as the other two. Any sort of standardization of
shutters is pretty recent.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Paul and Paula Butzi butzi@nwlink.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001
Subject: Rodenstock large format lens literature online at last
Bob Saloman agreed to send me the literature for Rodenstock's
large format lens offerings, and agreed that it would be fine for me
to scan it and put it up on my web site as a service to the
large-format community.
Today, the UPS van stopped by and dropped off a package containing
literature for a bunch of Rodenstock lenses, including the
Apo-Sironar-N, Apo-Grandagon and Grandagon-N, Apo-Macro-Sironar,
Apo-Rodagon-N, Rodagon, and Rodagon-WA lens lines.
Also included is a bunch of miscellaneous promotional literature,
including a huge binder full of stuff about Rodenstock, their
manufacturing abilities, quality assurance, components, special
products, coatings, etc.
The literature for the Apo-Sironar-S lines of lenses was not in the
package. If Bob will send me a copy of that, I'll certainly scan it
and put it up as well.
I have scanned the Apo-Sironar-N literature and placed it on my web
site at:
http://www.butzi.net/rodenstock/rodenstock.htm
That page is an index to the various scanned pages. I'll scan the
remaining lens literature as soon as I'm content that people find
the resolution an acceptable compromise between getting enough
resolution to read the text, charts, and tables, and file sizes small
enough to make them feasibly downloadable for people with
slow connections. I suspect most of the scanned pages should
take about a minute to download using a 28.8kb/s connection.
If it's really necessary, I could put each individual chart on a
separate page, but that's a lot of work I'd rather avoid.
Take a look and let me know what you think of the layout, the
resolution, etc. As soon as I'm confident that I've got a reasonable
scheme, I'll go ahead and scan the remaining stuff.
Once it's all up there, I imagine we can have some interesting
discussions about the performance comparisons based on
the MTF charts, etc. Schneider's charts are already online.
Does anyone have MTF charts and similar data for Fuji or
Nikkor large format or enlarging lenses?
-Paul
--
Newly updated and moved web site at:
http://www.butzi.net
From: keysal@aol.com (KEYSAL)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 17 Jan 2001
Subject: Front shutters
Checking out various sources it looks like the Packard Ideal shutter
should do the trick, im curious how thick they are and if they can be
flush mounted to stuff or do they need an attachment to some secure part,
then I came across this interesting shutter
http://www.lotusviewcamera.at/shutters_e.html
The site has very little information about the shutter made by Noble at
Dresden. Checking Noble at Dresden I could not find any info on this
shutter. It sounds like it can use both air bulb and electronic release.
9v battery operated sounds better then 24VDC converted from AC. Trying to
keep down the number of cords and hoses.
I noticed the site mentions our own SK Grimes so hopefully theres more
info out there about this mysterious shutter.
Thanks
Keysal
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001
From: Andrei.Calciu@hn.va.nec.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Lens Design in relation to Shutter
Because there are only a handful of shutter sizes, it is relatively easy
to
design a lens around them. Occasionally, a lens needs a spacer to be
inserted to move the glass elements further away from the diaphragm, but
the diameter and thread pitch are generally dictated by the shutters. The
rest of the lens spacing is handled by the manufacturer by the way they
place the glass within the lens barrel.
-_______________ Andrei D. Calciu (VA-4270) NEC America, Inc. 14040 Park Center Dr. Herndon, VA 20171-3227
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001
From: bigler@ens2m.fr
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Lens Design in relation to Shutter
Rodenstock and Schneider offer various shutter options for their view
camera lenses, namely Copal, Compur, Prontor and even
Rollei-electronic (for Schneider) plus some other brands. If you check
the technical specification page in the catalogue you'll see that
mounting threads are the same as far as the shutter is concerned.
Front or back filter threads however differ from one manufacturer to
another for similar lenses. Beware however if you unscrew the lens
elements yourself that some modern wide angle lenses have very narrow
mechanical specifications and thus require factory-mounting in order
to keep their maximum sharpness. This does not apply to standard
lenses like a 100mm (6x9) or 150 (4"x5") for which it is easy to
exchange lens panels "at home".
--
Emmanuel BIGLER
bigler@ens2m.fr
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] T3 "Double-Between-Lens" Shutter. How's it Work?
> From: JPMccormac@aol.com
> Reply-To: contax@photo.cis.to
> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001
> Subject: [CONTAX] T3 "Double-Between-Lens" Shutter. How's it Work?
>
> I read that the new Contax T3 uses a double leaf shutter
> ("double-between-lens" shutter in Contax-speak) to achieve the 1/1200 high
> shutter speed. I'm not sure how this works, but I suspect the two shutters are
> staggered in sequencing the shutter opening and closing. Can anyone elaborate
> on this? I believe this shutter is also used on the TVS III. Thanks.
>
> John McCormack
Here's my understanding of how it works based on a brief conversation. It
really isn't two shutters in the sense that mental
image might be. It's really more like one shutter with two sets of
blades.
What makes achieving really fast speeds with a leaf shutter difficult is
that the mechanism must open the blades all the way, bring them to a stop,
and then reverse direction to close them.
This shutter has one set of blades which are closed between photos and one
set which remain open. When you take a picture the first set opens and
stays open, and the second set closes. So neither set has to change
directions during the exposure. When the camera advances the film the two
sets of blades are returned to their original positions for the next
photo.
Now that is possibly not a 100% accurate description, but is how I
understand it to work.
Bob
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001
From: sanking@hubcap.clemson.edu (Sandy King)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Recommendations on Longer Lenses
"annqlee" annqlee@msn.com
wrote:
> Hi All, > > I am going to a camera show tomorrow and looking for tele lenses. > My criterion is around 600mm (I know that is wide angle for some > of you sadist) and covers 8x10. I just want it to perform as well as > a symmar at f45. According to many, a coke bottle will do well at that > f-stop. However, I am willing to bet my turtles 7th nipple, that the > convertible > part of the symmar (360/630) is not as good as the 360 at f45, similarly for > the 240/420.
If you are using 8X10 the 620mm single element of the Symmar 360mm will
give very acceptable results for most applications. The image circle is
actually much larger, on the order of 18-20", but gets quite soft at the
edges. However, the part that covers 8X0 is quite sharp.
AS for cheap lenses in the 600mm range don't expect to find that in a
modern Fuji or Nikkor. These will set you back $1800 plus. Best bet would
be to find a 600mm process lens, like the apo-nikkor, apo-tessar, etc. I
bought one of these for $200 and had it mounted in an Ilex #5 shutter.
Total investment was less than $600 and its performance is virtually
identical at infinity to the 600mm Fujninon-C. I know because I tested
them side by side.
Sandy King
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001
From: Mark Rabiner mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] M-X Xenar
>Snip] n a 3.5 M-X with Xenar on eBay. > Comes with a parts camera! > > Gene
check out this new Schneider thing on Vintage glass they've got on thier
site now!!!
Curtagon PA-Curtagon Radionar Reomar Tele-Xenar Super-Angulon Tele-Arton Tele-Variogon Variogon Xenagon Xenar Xenon
they've got one for large format as well!
http://www.schneideroptics.com/large/Vintage/small%20format/small.htm
mark rabiner
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] cocked shutter - old habits die hard
you wrote:
>Is it really true that I can leave my shutter cocked on my 3.5 F flex? It >just goes so much against the grain to leave the camera cocked. > >Rob
The shutter used in the E and F uses the same spring motor as the
shutter for the Hasselblad, which _must_ be left cocked. The spring is
under considerable compression all the time and is wound just a little
more when cocked.
It turns out that leaving springs compressed or tensed does not weaken
them. It is the cycling which eventually does, through fatigue. Although
the conventional wisdom is not to leave shutters cocked (I don't), it
evidently makes no difference.
I think there was a long thread in this list some time ago about this.
I would not leave an older Compur of the kind which uses a booster
spring for the highest speed cocked since it applies considerable force to
some parts of the shutter and, I suspect, the booster spring is wound
close to its elastic limit.
The design of the Automatic Rollei is such that the drive spring for the
time delay stays cocked whenever there is film in the camera unless the
delay has just been used. It is driven by a rather large coil spring which
is pretty far from its limit when tensioned.
Some Compur shutters use clock motor type spiral springs, old dial-set
Compurs and the Synchro-Compur, but middle aged ones, rim-set Compur and
Compur-Rapid types, use helical springs.
There are lots of springs in lots of things that spend their lives under
tension or compression and last a very long time. Also lots of jobs
fitting the above.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] leaf shutter anodizing?
> From: "John Kufrovich" jkufrovich@ev1.net > Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 > Subject: Re: [Rollei] leaf shutter anodizing? > > Interesting about the electronic shutters, do you think the speed limitation > is based on the motors. Wonder if any benefit to using Canons' Ultra Sonic > Motor to handle driving the blades.
No, the speed limitation is simply one of the mass of the shutter blades
and the need to accelerate them very rapidly. For this purpose the linear
motors are superior to springs. The PQ-S shutter drive motor is different
from the ones used in the PQ and older lenses, and I'd guess it generates
more force.
Rollei does sell these shutters in simple housings for use with standard
view camera lenses. They have a socket which connects them by cable to a
power source and control module.
An interesting take on leaf shutters and an example of thinking out of the
box is the shutter on the new Contax T3. It solves the problem of getting
high speeds out of a leaf shutter by simply using two sets of blades.
One set opens and a second set closes, so neither set needs to change
direction during operation. Changing direction is what puts the most
stress on shutters during operation and is what sometimes shears the pins
off shutter blades.
Contax has said they are developing leaf shutter lenses for their 645 with
speeds up to at least 1/1000 second, so it will be interesting to see just
what they have done when these come out.
Bob
From Camera Makers Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001
From: "Larry & Pat Nieland" lnieland@bellsouth.net
Subject: [Cameramakers] 50mm & 58mm lens remounts
Hi Again:
I have remounted the 50mm Mamiya press lens in the 65mm Mamiya TLR
Seiko ( chrome) shutters. The aperture scale works perfectly! The early 65
TLR lenses are noted for "hazing", in which case you can pick up the
shutter relatively inexpensively. The 50mm Mamiya is a slightly retrofucus
lens in as much as the infinity focus = 60mm (+ or - ) from film plane.
Because of this , it is less susceptible to light fall off in the corners
and neutral density center filters are less of a requirement. The 50mm
Mamiya has an image circle of 115mm and I think you could get more if you
removed the shoulder from the edge of the rear element which acts as a
lens shade of the rear element.
I have remounted the 58mm Koni in 105mm no. O shutters and the
aperture scale works perfectly! I cannot explain why - only say that I
have done it and it WORKS. These 105mm shutters can be picked up on 6X9
folding cameras. The Koni is also retrofocus, and covers 56 X 82 with very
slight ( hardly noticeable) fall off in the very corners.
I would also like to mention that using an old folding camera as a
body has the added advantage of holding the film flatter because of a lack
of reverse curl as is unavoidable when using most interchangeable roll
film backs from other cameras.
Regards,
LARRY (Nieland)
From ROllei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] leaf shutter anodizing?
you wrote:
>I forgot, I had a broucher on the 6000 series, in there, was a picture of >the shutter. > >Does the shutter hit a mechanical stop, when it opens. If so, it would seem to me that they could couple the shutter to the diaphram. When you set the aperture on the lens it would change the mechanical stop, perhaps one stop larger than the aperture setting. Then, they could have a varying shutter speed based on the aperture setting. Another benefit, if the diaphram wasn't anodized this could limit the surface reflection from the diaphram. > >John Kufrovich
Snipping...
Edward Bausch, son of the J.J.Bausch, one of the founders of B&L;,
designed a shutter called the Volute which used the same blades for both
shutter and iris. They were hinged at the same end and stopped opening at
a preset point. The shutter was rather complex but had the advantage of
allowing very small spacing between cells. That made it usable for lenses
like wide angle Protars. The Volute was made for many years, at least
until the 1930's. The same principle of hinging of the leaves is used in
many cameras with automatic diaphragms since a relatively short movement
of the blade ring will completely open and close the blades.
Another interesting shutter is the Wollensak Optimo, made from around
1910 to the late 1920's. This shutter uses double ended shutter blades
which completely turn around rather than reversing. The blades are turned
through 180deg when the shutter is tripped, reversing when the shutter is
tripped again. These were popular (and expensive) shutters until
supplanted by the gear regulated Compur, as were many other shutters.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] leaf shutter anodizing?
you wrote:
>Richard, you just reminded me of a unique feature of the diaphragm used >in the Rollei shutters. There are the usual diaphragm blades which form >the opening and are turned by a ring to set the size of the opening. There >is also an auxiliary blade hinged to the ring by a short link, and this >blade only swings in when the diaphragm is at it smallest stop and the >motor kicks it past that position, which causes it to cover the opening >and completely close the diaphragm to light. Hard to precisely describe. >It is an additional light blind to protect the film from fogging after >the mirror starts on its way up and while it comes back down after the >exposure. I found it to be a nice, elegant, extra touch! > >Bob
I've never found a good source of history of shutters. What I know I've
learned from many scattered sources. Kingslake discusses Theodore Bruck,
one of the founders of Ilex and the inventor of the gear regulator. He
also discuses Bauch and Lomb a little and the Wollensak brothers. Both
Bruch and the Wollensaks worked for B&L.; However, beyond this history is
hard to find.
There have been some interesting and ingeneous designs in the past the
Volute and the Optimo are only a couple.
Some puzzles: The Compound shutter is supposed to have been invented by
someone from Linhof who was originally partners with Fredrick Deckel. I
may have seen the name somwhere. I think Bob Salomon was the source of
this. I would be interesting to know something about Herr Deckel, who
evidently made fine machinery before getting into the shutter business
(and maybe after too). Deckel shutters were almost universally used in all
better quality cameras for several decades.
Also, does anyone know anything about the partnership, or the fellow who
designed the Compound (Marc maybe)?
Its possible to estimate the cost of shutters by comparing the cost of
barrel lenes to shutter lenses. Of course, the cost of the barrel is
usually unknown, but there are some lens catalogues which offer the cells
alone, so one can interpolate. Considering that shutters are fairly high
precision devices, and that there was always a lot of hand work in them
they were remarkably cheap. Maybe due to being made by the millions. Few
camera makers made their own shutters; Rollei used Compur and the shutter
is part of the reliability of the camera.
Ilex owned the patents for the gear regulator and survived for a couple
of decades on the royalties.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001
Subject: Re: Kodak Ball Bering Shutter
Richard Knoppow wrote:
> "Steve Shapiro" 165.121.116.175 wrote: > >Recently there was a reasonable offer for a Kodak lens in a ball bering > >shutter. I have never had any information on this type of shutter, anybody > >know about the ball bearing shutter. Or, the Premo? > > Ball Bearing shutters have three speeds, often measuring > nearly the same.
If they are dirty, which they usually are, they run at one speed.
They are meant to run dry, and this means they are prey to rust. And just
plain ole smut from the air settles on the innards. The combination of
rust and smut does a good job of sticking up the works.
The best cleaning for these mechanisms used to be an ultrasonic bath with
freon, but this is now tabu. This procedure got all the dirt out without
any disassembly. I have experimented with using lighter fluid (naphtha)
in an ultrasonic bath but it is not the sort of thing I am comfortable
with - I do it outside with a garden hose at the ready. Never had any
flames, but I worry. And there is always some splashing.
I have been taking them apart, cleaning them and reassembling - but I find
they are tricky little beasts and have taken a decided set in their ways
over their 80 odd year life time (won't we all) and they need to have
their washers, springs and screws put back -exactly- as they were. I
don't seem to have the patience for it - I was thinking of videotaping the
shutter disassembly at close (1-2") range as a record of the way things
were and applying light score marks to indicate washer location and
orientation.
When I do get them to work right they deliver 3 distinct speeds.
Although designed to work dry I usually apply a little moly powder lube
when I am done. They run with nicer sound then, though the moly does
distribute on the inner lens surfaces and needs to be blown off now and
then.
A very reliable low stress design.
Those old lenses delivery remarkable results, the ones in the bigger
folders will cover 4x5 with no movements. I am always tempted to make an
ultralight 4x5 box camera using one of these lenses.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001
Subject: Re: alphax-betax-raptar
Wayne wsteffen@skypoint.com wrote:
>What are the features of/ differences between these Wollensak shutters, >and how do you know what No. they are when they dont have it written on >them? > >Does anyone know the lens hole size for the different No.'s? > >Wayne
The Alphax is a self setting shutter with speeds from 1 second to
1/00th to 1/50th depending size. Late Alphax shutters had flash synch.
By memory (because I can't find a catalogue) the Betax was a less
expensive version of the Alphax with fewer speeds.
Both shutters were built from the late 'teens to probably the 1970's.
The Rapax, also sold by Graflex as the Graphex, is a full featured
shutter requiring cocking. The size used on Speed Graphics has speeds
from 1 second to 1/400th and full selectable flash synch. This shutter
was meant to compete with the Compur Rapid and Kodak Flash Supermatic.
Wollensak built very good shutters, the large ones, IMHO, being
superior to the equivalent Ilex's.
I see Mike Gudzinowicz has posted sizes.
Wollensak also built Gammax and Deltax shutters in the distant past.
I know very little about these.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
[Ed. note: thanks to Michael Gudzinowicz for providing this
information!]
From: bg174@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Gudzinowicz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 8 Apr 2001
Subject: Re: alphax-betax-raptar
Wayne steffen@skypoint.com wrote:
>What are the features of/ differences between these Wollensak >shutters, and how do you know what No. they are when they dont >have it written on them? > >Does anyone know the lens hole size for the different No.'s?
Front Front Rear Rear Flange Flange Front/ Max.
Maker Thread Thread Thread Thread Thread Thread Rear Iris
Model Diam. Pitch Diam. Pitch Diam. Pitch Dist. Opening
(in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in)
(mm) (cm) (mm) (cm) (mm) (cm) (mm) (mm)
Wollensak
#0 0.838 50.0 0.838 50.0 0.953 40.0 0.710 0.552
21.3 19.7 21.3 19.7 24.2 15.7 18.0 14.0
#1 1.059 50.0 1.059 50.0 1.185 40.0 0.808 0.710
26.9 19.7 26.9 19.7 30.1 15.7 20.5 18.0
#2 1.204 50.0 1.204 50.0 1.325 40.0 0.827 1.024
30.6 19.7 30.6 19.7 33.7 15.7 21.0 26.0
#3 1.764 40.0 1.764 40.0 1.997 30.0 0.946 1.380
44.8 15.7 44.8 15.7 50.7 11.8 24.0 35.1
#4 2.389 40.0 2.389 40.0 2.623 30.0 1.024 1.761
60.7 15.7 60.7 15.7 66.6 11.8 26.0 44.7
#5 2.901 40.0 2.901 40.0 3.128 30.0 1.024 2.233
73.7 15.7 73.7 15.7 79.5 11.8 26.0 56.7
Ilex
#00 Precise 0.839 50.0 0.839 50.0 0.945 50.0 0.689 0.551
21.3 19.7 21.3 19.7 24.0 19.7 17.5 14.0
#00 Acme 0.886 50.0 0.886 50.0 0.996 50.0 0.669 0.685
22.5 19.7 22.5 19.7 25.3 19.7 17.0 17.4
#0 Prec, Univ, 1.059 50.0 1.059 50.0 1.169 40.0 0.787 0.748
Acme, and Gen 26.9 19.7 26.9 19.7 29.7 15.7 20.0 19.0
#1 Prec, Univ, 1.248 50.0 1.248 50.0 1.323 40.0 0.827 1.004
Acme, and Gen 30.7 19.7 30.7 19.7 33.6 15.7 21.0 25.5
#2 Univ, 1.452 50.0 1.452 50.0 1.606 40.0 0.847 1.083
Acme, and Gen 36.9 19.7 36.9 19.7 40.8 15.7 21.5 27.5
#3 Univ, 1.756 50.0 1.756 50.0 1.909 40.0 0.866 1.370
Acme, and Gen 44.6 19.7 44.6 19.7 48.5 15.7 22.0 34.8
#4 Univ, 2.323 40.0 2.323 40.0 2.500 30.0 0.906 1.732
Acme, and Gen 59.0 15.7 59.0 15.7 63.5 11.8 23.0 44.0
#5 Univ 2.965 40.0 2.965 40.0 3.228 30.0 1.090 2.500
75.3 15.7 75.3 15.7 82.0 11.8 27.7 63.5
From: bg174@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Gudzinowicz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 9 Apr 2001
Subject: Re: alphax-betax-raptar
...
There's a list of shutters and features near the end of my old
copy of McKeown's guide.
Alphax 1946-56 5 speeds, T, B Betax 1922-48 6 speeds, T, B Graphex 1946? 9 speeds, T, B Rapax 1946-56 9 speeds, T, B
The Gammax and Deltax were 4 and 3 speed shutters made from 1922-42.
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: "market" or "technological" reason?
Brian Ellis wrote:
> Well, for one thing Nikon hasn't introduced a new large format lens in > what - fifteen years? Twenty years? If Chevrolet was still selling the 1980 > model, they could probably sell it for a pretty low price, especially if > they also didn't do any advertising or promotion. Then there's things like > comparative wages in the counrty of manufacture, currency exchange rates, > acceptable level of profit, materials costs, transportation charges - who > knows?
Hi Brian,
All valid points, but I wish to add a couple (OK, it's more than a
couple) comments. According to my Nikon literature, the most recent LF
lens introduction was ~1986 - so call it 15 years. Unlike cars, new
lens models don't come out every year - especially in a small niche
market like large format.
FWIW, Schneider is the ONLY large format lens manufacturer to introduce
ANY new models capable of covering AT LEAST 4x5 at infinity in over six
years. The last such intro from Rodenstock was the 55mm APO Grandagon-N
announced at Photokina in September, 1994. The last such lenses from
Fujinon were the shorter CM-W models (105mm, 125mm, 135mm, 150mm, 180mm,
210mm and 250mm) in Spring, 1995. Schneider, of course has had several
new models in the Super Symmar XL series - most recently the 80mm Super
Symmar XL introduced at Photokina in September, 2000.
So even though Nikon's LF lens designs have remained stagnant since
1986, other than Schnedier, the other manufacturers aren't exactly
turning out new designs on any kind of regular basis.
Back to Nikon. Even though they have seemed to neglect promoting their
LF lenses in the US in recent years, they do evidently promote them more
vigorously in Japan. I have in front of me (just arrived in the mail
today) a beautiful, full color 20 page (counting covers) Japanese
language brochure covering the entire Nikkor LF lens line-up. The date
on the cover: April 1, 2001 (and no, I don't think this is meant as some
kind of April Fools joke - an American custom). How active they promote
them in Japan, I have no idea, but from the looks of things they've
spared no expense on printing a very nice brochure - and quite recently.
WRT to the lenses themselves - I've used a lot of Nikkors over the years
(75mm SW, 90mm f8 SW, 135mm W, 200mm M, 210mm W, 300mm M, 450mm M,
360/500/720 T-ED) and they are of outstanding quality. I am especially
fond of the 90mm f8 SW, the 300mm M (and the 200mm M for backpacking)
and the 360/500mm T-ED set. These lenses all offer something the
competition can't really touch - even though these are all 15 - 20 year
old designs. The 90mm f8 Nikkor SW is smaller, lighter and offers more
coverage than any of the other "slow" 90s. The 300mm M is also small,
light and wonderfully sharp (the 300mm Fujinon C is the only competition
here). The 360/500 T-ED offers interchangable rear elements and amazing
performance for a telephoto (downright amazing PERIOD).
So, I don't think they are technologically inferior - it's more a case
of Nikon choosing where to spend their R&D; and manufacturing yen. The
35mm SLR, 35mm point-n-shoot, APS and digital markets ALL dwarf the LF
lens market (by several orders of magnitude). Since Nikon participates
in all these markets to a much greater extent than Schneider,
Rodenstock, and even Fuji, it's not hard to figure out where they're
putting their development efforts. Besides, their LF lenses are still
quite good and probably sell about as well as ever. Not much incentive
to spend a pile of cash redesigning them and retooling a manufacturing
line. Of course, I'd be pleased as punch if they did - be interesting
to see what they could do with aspheric elements and other
technologies/materials that have become more readily available and
affordable in the last 15 years.
Kerry
--
Kerry's Large Format Homepage
http://largeformat.terrashare.com
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: "market" or "technological" reason?
Brian Ellis wrote:
> Hi Kerry - I didn't mean to knock Nikon large format lenses - I use the 300 > M and like it a lot - only Nikon's seeming lack of interest in their lline > of large format lenses. I was being facetious to some extent with my analogy > to a 1980 Chevrolet but certainly Nikon doesn't promote their large format > lenses in this country. Rodenstock may not have introduced any new lenses > in the last six years, but that's nine years later than Nikon and at least > they advertise and promote them. It's a little aggravating to try to buy a > new Nikon large format lens in this country and have five different dealers > tell you their Nikon large format lenses are on back order and they don't > know when they will receive any (my experience when I was buying the 300 M, > which I ended up having to buy used because I couldn't find a dealer who had > any in stock, inlcuding B&H.;
Brian,
This lack of marketing (and perhaps availability) seems to be the direct
result of decisions made by Nikon USA. As you said, it's like pulling
teeth to get them to admit Nikon even makes LF lenses. Still, there are
alternatives. Badger Graphic now directly imports ("gray market")
Nikkor LF lenses, has terrific prices, and usually has them in stock.
By by-passing Nikon USA, they seem to have gotten around the "brick
wall" that was separating would be customers from information, and even
buying Nikkor LF lenses.
On a related note, and this is second hand and years old, but it doesn't
seem to have changed, I was once told by a camera store owner that they
did not carry Nikon LF lenses because Nikon USA insisted that they be a
"Full Line" dealer - not just LF (and this was a LF specialty store).
So, that means in order to carry Nikkor LF lenses, he would have to also
stock and sell Nikon 35mm SLRs, 35mm point-n-shoots, APS and digital
products. These are all high volume, low margin products not typically
of interest to clients of a LF speciality shop - and readily available
and heavily discounted elswhere. And of course, the high volume low
margin mega chains at the local mall don't have any interest in carrying
LF lenses - nor are they generally frequented by LF shooters. So, it
seemed like only big mail order houses like B&H;, Adorama and Calumet
were carrying Nikkor LF lenses (because they also did a brisk business
in the 35mm, APS and digital Nikon lines). Not sure if that policy has
changed, but I think a direct result of it is that you're seeing more
dealers offering "gray market" Nikon LF lenses (even B&H;) and smaller LF
speciality shops like Badger stocking and selling "gray market" LF
Nikkors since they don't impose the same "Full Line" requirement as
lenses "officially" imported by Nikon USA.
Kerry
--
Kerry's Large Format Homepage
http://largeformat.terrashare.com
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: "market" or "technological" reason?
Wood Grain Vinyl wrote:
> I never understand the constant need by "photographers" to have "new" lenses.
Wood,
I admit it, I'm a gear head (former engineer - fascinated by all things
technical), but I actually DO use my lenses and I care much more about
the results on the film and in the print than the name on the lens or
numbers on a graph. I guess that explains why I use lenses from all
four major manufacturers on a regular basis, and why I also use a 90mm
WA Congo and a Goerz Artar or two when backpacking.
> Once a design is worked out mathematically on a computer where is the room for > improvement? It is like trying to improve the formula for water. I might > understand the need in 35mm cameras to re-design lenses because the technology > changes such as autofocus but, in large format, there are no such changes. To > introduce "new" lenses on a constant basis for large format is folly when there > is no true improvement. Elsewise, we would not still be using Protars and > Dagors.
There have been gradual advancements, mostly evolutionary, a few
revolutionary, in glass types, coatings and manufacturing techniques
over the last three or four decades (certainly in the last century).
The now ubiquitous 6/4 plasmat is an air-spaced Dagor. It is a better
corrected design made possible once lens coatings became practical and
affordable. Multicoatings further enhance contrast by reducing flare.
The Zeiss Biogon virtually made all preceding wide angle designs
obsolete. The current Super Angulon, Grandagon-N, Nikkor SW and Fujnon
SW are all derived from the Biogon. More recently, the Super Symmar XL
uses aspheric elements to yield lenses that are not just amazingly
sharp, but also offer enormous coverage, compact size and lighter
weight. Their coverage equals or exceeds the f8 Super Angulons they've
replaced, their performance is better, they are a full stop faster, much
smaller and about 1/2 the weight of their predecessors. For my needs,
that's progress. For others, it's perhaps inconsequential.
Does this mean everybody needs them - no. Does this mean everybody will
benefit from each and everyone of these advances - not necessarily. It
all depends on each photographers needs, goals and preferences. Someone
shooting 12x20 and making pt/pd prints will have vastly different needs
than someone shooting 4x5 color transparency film.
Does owning the latest and greatest lenses make someone a better
photographer - no, but it doesn't make them a worse photographer
either. Maybe it just makes them a happier photographer - and I see
nothing wrong with that. Personally, I like small, light lenses for
backpacking. For general purpose use, I'll put up with a little more
weight (but I still prefer to avoid the 4 - 5 lb. monsters with their
enormous filters sizes) in exchange for more coverage. My ideal lenses
are small, lightweight, sharp, contrasty and with generous coverage.
That said, even within my personal criteria, I've had to make some
compromises. For example, when I want to go REALLY light for long
backpacking trip, I've been known to carry a 30 year old Goerz Artar or
two. The WA Congo I carry is of recent manufacture, but the design is a
wide field Gauss that's been around longer than me. My Artars have less
coverage than most "modern" alternatives, but they are also smaller and
lighter than anything in their respective focal lengths.
Personally, I'm thrilled as all get out about each and every new LF
design that comes along (and as I noted in my previous post, that isn't
very often). It gives us more choices, and I see nothing wrong with
that. Given that LF has been a niche market for many decades, I'm often
amazed (but very thankful) that anybody is still investing R&D; dollars
to further advance the state of the art. That doesn't mean I buy every
new lens that comes along, but I do seriously consider anything that
meets my needs better than what existed previously.
As always, YMMV.
Kerry
--
Kerry's Large Format Homepage
http://largeformat.terrashare.com
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: ziess
robertamsden@webtv.net (Robert Amsden) wrote:
>Can anybody tell me if ziess is making any view camera lens now ?
Zeiss seems to have abandoned LF lenses some time ago. They make, or
license their name to be used, on lenses made for Hasselblad and
Rolleiflex.
The recent history of the East German part of Zeiss is somewhat
complex and I'm not sure of the details. Parts of it were reacquired
by Zeiss in Oberchoken and parts sold off.
The principle German manufacturers (and maybe the only ones) are
Schneider and Rodenstock. Otherwise both Fuji and Nikon make some LF
lenses, and very good ones too, although you would never know it from
their web sites.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: ziess
Richard Knoppow wrote:
> robertamsden@webtv.net (Robert Amsden) wrote: > > >Can anybody tell me if ziess is making any view camera lens now ? > > > Zeiss seems to have abandoned LF lenses some time ago.
As far as I'm aware, the 135mm f3.5 Planar T* is the most recent general
purpose LF taking lens Zeiss has manufactured. And this is a VERY rare
lens. It was made in VERY limited quantities as a special government
order (I believe it was the Japanese government that placed the initial
order). Some of these have found their way into dealer and private
hands. How many exactly were made - I'm not sure. I HEARD (but cannot
confirm) that the initial order was for 140 lenses, so Ziess made and
even 150 and ten of them ended up at a dealer in NY. I've also heard
there was a subsequent production run a few years later. No exact
number, but I've heard perhaps as many as 700 units (I've also heard
smaller numbers for this second batch). So, somewhere between 150 and
850 units produced - and only part of those available for private
purchase. I did have one of these lenses for a while and optically it
was superb (as you'd expect). However, I eventually sold it. It was
substantially bigger, heavier and had significantly less coverage than
my 135mm APO Sironar-S. Plus, it cost a fortune and since I use my
lenses rather than "collect" them I was always afraid I'd damage it in
the field. Not so much because of the money (I have a full replacement
value insurance policy on my gear), but because of the rarity. If I did
manage to dop it off a cliff or into the ocean - there would be one less
of these wonderful lenses in existence - and it would be my fault. So,
I always found myself thinking more about protecting the lens than
taking pictures with it. I sent an email to Zeiss with several
questions about this lens, but never got a response. From general Zeiss
serial number information, I was able to determine that my particular
lens was made ~1993. I believe this means it was from the "second
batch" (I believe the "first batch" was about 3-4 years earlier. If
you'd like to see a picture and read a little more about this lens, see:
http://largeformat.terrashare.com/future.htm
(but act fast - my host is pulling the plug any day now).
Other than that, Zeiss stopped making general purpose LF taking lenses
in the 1960s. At that time they offered Biogons, Planars, Tessars and
Sonnars for both 6x9 and 9x12 (4x5). These were single coated models,
primarily made for Linhof (and the 75mm Biogon was also made for the US
military - evidently in fairly significant quantities). Also, Zeiss
bought Voigtlander sometime in the 1960s and manufactured some LF lenses
bearing the Voigtlander name. For example, I have a Linhof select 15cm
APO Lanthar that was made by Zeiss in the mid-1960s.
In special purpose lenses, Ziess also made the Luminar lenses for high
magnification work. These came in assorted focal lengths for various
film formats and magnification ratios. I have no idea when these were
discontinued.
So, if you want to shoot anything bigger than 6x6 these days with a
Zeiss lens, you're choices are pretty limited (older, single coated
models from the 1960s, or an expensive, rare 135mm Planar T* - if you
can find one).
Kerry
--
Kerry's Large Format Homepage
http://largeformat.terrashare.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001
From: Bob Salomon bob@hpmarketingcorp.com
Subject: Re: Overseas cameras and View Camera's editorial policy
You seem to be very adept at reading into what I said.
Fuji's last importer, DO Optical, stopped importing Fuji lenses when they
were told there would be a substantial price increase due to a re-design,
about 15 years ago. That increase would have priced them at the same price
as the German lenses. And, at that time, there was no market for those
lenses at German prices.
So DO dropped the line and Fuji decided that they would not support the
line either in the US. In fact no other distributor, including the Fuji
binocular distributor, has seen fit to import the line.
The only source of Fuji lenses in the US is from some camera stores. But
their price does not reflect costs that would be necessary to actually
distribute them in the US.
They have no advertising expense (dealer ads in a magazine are less
expensive then distributor prices for the same number of inches), Show
expense for national shows, sales costs to support a sales force and
technical force that calls on dealers, warranty expense, free literature
and mailings, etc.
Add these normal expenses and those lenses would become materially more
expensive.
HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann,
Braun, CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan,
Kaiser, Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Sirostar, Tetenal
Cloths and Ink Jet Papers, VR, Wista, ZTS www.hpmarketingcorp.com
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Fujionon LF Lenses and D.O. Industries (was: Overseas cameras
and View Camera's editorial policy)
Bob Salomon wrote:
> Fuji's last importer, DO Optical, stopped importing Fuji lenses when they > were told there would be a substantial price increase due to a re-design, > about 15 years ago. That increase would have priced them at the same price > as the German lenses. And, at that time, there was no market for those > lenses at German prices.
I recently had a very long phone conversation with Julian Goldstein
regarding Fujinon lenses and D.O. Industries (not DO Optical - as Bob
states above). Mr. Goldstein and his brother Jeremy are currently the
co-presidents of Navitar - formerly known as D.O. Industries. D.O.
Industries was founded by their father, the late David Goldstein in 1972
- the same year they became the official U.S. distributor for Fujinon
Professional Lenses. Julian and Jeremy Goldstein both worked at D.O.
Industries at the time they were the distributor for Fujinon
Professional Lenses. Julian Goldstein was highly involved in the
company's relationship with Fujinon. During this phone conversation, I
specifically asked Mr. Goldstein why D.O. Industries discontinued their
relationship with Fujinon. The reasons he gave are very different than
the one cited by Mr. Salomon in the above paragraph.
According to Julian Goldstein, the reason D.O. Industries ceased to be
the exclusive U.S. Distributor for Fujinon lenses was because they
decided to concentrate their manpower on the production of their own
products. In addition to distributing the Fujinon lenses D.O.
Industries (now Navitar) was a producer of a variety of lenses for Audio
Visual systems, machine vision and other specialized optics (Navitar
continues to be an industry leader in many of these applications).
According to Mr. Goldstein, the business decision to cease acting as the
U.S. distributor was based on the fact that the manpower and associated
cost required to support a large network of Fujinon dealers was far
greater, based on rate of return, than for the lenses that they
manufactured themselves. In other words, their profit margins and
return on investment was greater for the products they produced than it
was for the Fujinon lenses they were distributing. In 1989, they
purchased a new, larger building to house their business offices, and at
that time, they decided to concentrate their efforts solely on the
products they manufactured. Thus ended their 17 year role as the
exclusive U.S. distributor for Fujinon large format lenses.
When asked specifically about the quality and cost of Fujinon lenses,
Mr. Goldstein stated emphatically that they were proud to have served as
the U.S. distributor for Fujinon lenses and that his father, Mr. David
Goldstein, had specifically sought out Fujinon in the early 1970s
because he wanted to work with the biggest and best. Julian Goldstein
also told me that they always felt the Fujinon lenses were equal to, or
better than anything else made. They definitely did not cease
distributing Fujinon lenses for quality reasons. Also, it was not due
directly to pricing. It was simply a matter of maximizing return on
investment by focusing on the products they produced in-house. In
hindsight, Julian Goldstein believes this decision was a good one. It
allowed them to focus their efforts on the products they produced and
grow their company into the present day Navitar.
WRT to Mr. Salomon's assertion: "stopped importing Fuji lenses when they
were told there would be a substantial price increase due to a
re-design, about 15 years ago" I'm not sure who his source is for this
claim, but it is not historically accurate. There are several factual
errors in this statement. First of all, D.O. Industries ceased to act
as the U.S. Distributor for Fujinon large format lenses 12 years ago in
1989. The Fujinon lens line had undergone a major re-design during the
1979 - 1982 time period. During that time, the NWS series was
introduced as a replacement for the WS line, the C series was introduced
(July, 1982), the NSWS line replaced the SWS line (also July, 1982), and
several older models were discontinued (f8 SWS series, L series, 150mm
f6.3 W, etc.).
So, 15 years ago, in 1986, the Fujinon line-up was still quite new by
large format standards, with the vast majority of products in their
line-up ranging from 4 - 7 years old. Even if you use the historically
accurate date of 1989, the major components (NSWS, NWS, CS, etc.) of the
Fujinon large format product line ranged from 7 - 10 years old. Just to
put that in context, Nikon has not introduced any new LF lenses in the
last 15 years, the current APO Symmar line is 12 years old, the Super
Angulon series were introduced in the mid-1950s (f8 models) and early
1960s (f5.6 models), the APO-Sironar-S line is nine years old, the
APO-Sironar-N and Grandagon-N substantially older, and even the
relatively "new" 45mm and 55mm APO-Grandagon-Ns are pushing seven years
old. So, whether you use Bob's inaccurate 1986 date, or the correct
1989 date, the Fujinon large format lens line-up was still relatively
new and hardly "due to a re-design".
This is also supported by the fact that the major redesign Bob alluded
to did not take place until 1994/95 with the introduction of the current
CM-W line - a full 5 - 6 years after D.O. Industries stopped
distributing Fujinon lenses. The 300mm, 360mm and 450mm CM-W lenses
were introduced in 1994 followed by the other focal lengths in 1995.
BTW, for those keeping track, this makes the Fujinon CM-W the newest
standard LF lens line in the world - guess the others are due for a
re-design. When I spoke to Julian Goldstein, he had never heard of the
CM-W line and was surprised to hear the Fujinon had introduced a
re-designed standard lens line during the 1990s. So, it hardly seem
likely this re-design had anything to do with D.O. Industries ending
their Fujinon distributorship.
> So DO dropped the line and Fuji decided that they would not support the line > either in the US. In fact no other distributor, including the Fuji binocular > distributor, has seen fit to import the line.
your wording implies that for some reason this makes the Fujinon lenses
inferior in quality or design to the other brands. The fact is Fujinon
themselves have decide not to pursue another North American distributor
since their relationship with D.O. Industries ended in 1989. At that
time, Calumet very much wanted to become the new U.S. distributor for the
Fujinon lenses, but it was Fujinon that turned them down - not the other
way around.
> The only source of Fuji lenses in the US is from some camera stores. But > their price does not reflect costs that would be necessary to actually > distribute them in the US. > > They have no advertising expense (dealer ads in a magazine are less > expensive then distributor prices for the same number of inches), Show > expense for national shows, sales costs to support a sales force and > technical force that calls on dealers, warranty expense, free literature and > mailings, etc. > > Add these normal expenses and those lenses would become materially more > expensive.
Which, of course, makes the Fujinon lenses bargains for the consumer.
BTW, similar bargains are available on all other LF lens brands, if the
consumer is willing to bypass the distributor. BTW, I'm not
recommending anyone do so - it's up to each individual to decide for
themselves if they want to pay more for the official US version of these
lenses, or by them "gray market" or direct imported from other sources.
BTW, "some camera stores" includes Badger Graphic, Midwest Photo
Exchange and the F-Stops Here - three of the most highly regarded large
format equipment dealers in the US - and Robert White in the UK. When
buying Fujinon lenses (or any other direct import item), I personally
have complete confidence purchasing from Badger Graphic. I know they
are a reputable dealer and will stand behind what they sell (and without
them, I wouldn't have my Fujinon lenses or my Toho camera). So, given
the current global marketplace and the support of dealers like Badger,
Midwest and the F-Stop, for Fujinon, the lack of an official US
distributor seems like a win:win business model. Their lenses are more
affordable, which makes them accessible to more potential customers, and
they don't have the direct expense of advertising, a sales force, a
marketing department, etc.
Kerry
--
Kerry's Large Format Homepage
http://largeformat.terrashare.com
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Rapid rectilinears for today
erodednerves@aol.commoner (Eroded nerves) wrote:
>I once read that the R. Rect. lens could not be used to make photos before 8:00 >in the morning or after 5:00 at night. I couldn't figure why and the book >didn't say. I figure it was because of the amount of light and the slowness of >the lens. This was in a NY Inst. of Photog. course from 1953. > >E. Nerves
Its not true but probably refers to the color correction of the lens.
Early and late in the day the light is much redder than at other
times. If a lens has poor chromatic correction at the red end of the
spectrum it will be noticably less sharp in reddish light.
However, R-R lenses are actually pretty well corrected for chromatic
aberration. In the days when R-R lenses came into wide use wet plates
were still being used. They were insensitive to red light and had
little sensitivity beyond blue-green. The "actinic" quality of the
light at dawn and dusk would have been so red that the plates probably
were almost insensitive to it.
When dry plates were introduced around 1880 it was quickly found how
to extend the color sensitivity into the green and yellow, so they had
both better tonal rendition and better sensitivity early and late in
the day.
Panchromatic emulsions became available around 1910, maybe even
earlier, but did not become popular until the 1930's.
Many old lenses are not very well corrected for color and depended
on the limited color sensitivity of the film or plates to give sharp
images.
Most Rapid Rectilinear lenses will do fine on modern materials.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Graflex - Crown VS Speed
groovensynth nottawaseppi@arrow.org wrote:
>Hi, > Im considering a Graflex 4X5 Press camera (Pacemaker). What are the >opinions irt the differences btwn having a focal plane shutter and not >having one. I have been reading graflex.org, but I don't seem to >understand. > > >tks!
The Crown Graphic was originally introduced as a low cost
alternative to the Speed Graphic. A lot of photographers found they
never used the focal plane shutter, especially after more modern front
shutters with speeds faster than 1/200th became available.
The original Speed Graphic, c.1927 offered the focal plane shutter
partly because it was Folmer & Schwing's patent and most of these
camras were equipped with barrel lenses. The FP shutter continued to
be standard equipment until the Crown Graphic was offered in 1947.
Many press photogrphers did use the FP shutter, especially for sports,
where the highest speed allowed stopping motion, pre strobe lights.
Some photographers never used the FP shutter and it was just an
unnessary appendage.
The Crown is lighter and the box is shallower than the Speed Graphic
because it doesn't have to house the focal plane shutter.
The back shutter is sometimes useful. I find I do use them
occasionally when I either want the high speed (they really will do
1/1000 sec.) or for using barrel lenses.
As far as quality there is no difference, the lower original price
of the Crown was entirely due to the lack of the back shutter.
These days the price of a Crown Graphic is likely to be higher than
a comparable Speed Graphic. The low weight and more compact box have
made them more desirable and there were fewer of them built.
I would choose a Graphic more on its condition and the lens than on
whether it was a Crown or Speed, but also suggest hefting both to see
what the weight difference is.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: slberfuchs@aol.com (Ted Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 16 Jun 2001
Subject: Re: "super" angulons on Ebay
In this instance I suspect it is ignorant sellers rather than a case of
purposeful misguidance. in any event, you can always tell the difference
between a super angulon and an angulon by the maximum aperature. Older
Super angulon's tend to be f8 and Angulon's f6.8.
Ted Harris
Resource Strategy
Henniker, New Hampshire
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001
From: "redd peety" reddpeety@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What lensboard for Schneider Angulon 90
I find myself working on the very same problem. That is, trying to
mount a 90 f6.8 in Synchro-Compur P onto a recessed board for Graphic
View. The problem I am running into is this. The metal recessed
lensboard has a very deep flange behind the mounting hole. The shutter
slips into the hole nicely, but the threads do not extend behind the
board. I can't see any way to thread the retaining ring, there are no
threads showing. Is there a way to do this? Am I missing something here?
Thanks a lot,
Redd Peety
Date: 02 Jun 2001
From: rwatson767@aol.com (RWatson767)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What lensboard for Schneider Angulon 90
Redd
>What lensboard for Schneider Angulon 90 > >Is there a way >to do this? Am I missing something here?
The recessed lensboard needs to have the hole counterbored. When I do
these I need to have the shutter aand the mounting ring in order to check
my work.
Bob AZ
From: jgestar@aol.com (Jgestar)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 02 Jun 2001
Subject: Re: What lensboard for Schneider Angulon 90
Redd,
The threads on your lens are 6mm long, so the board should not be more
than 4.5mm thick, although you may get away with slightly thicker if your
retaining ring has a flange. A lot depends on the type of retaining ring
you have with your lens. If you have a flat retaining ring, the size of
the hole in the board must be slightly larger than the outer diameter of
the lens mount threads, >32.5mm. In addition, the thickness of the board
should be 4.5mm or less. Otherwise you will use only a thread or two to
hold the lens on the board. Most retaining rings have a 1mm long flange
that fits into the hole on the lens board. If this is the case, the size
of the hole must match the flange (>34.5mm). This is the "standard" Copal
#0 hole. If you have the retaining ring with the flange and your board is
bored out to >34.5mm, you can get away with a board as thick as 5.5mm.
I have one of the Graphic boards and it is about 6.5mm thick at the
flange. However, the flange is counterbored to be about 4.5mm thick. In
addition, the board is bored with a 33mm hole through the board AND an
additional 1mm deep 34.7mm counterbore for the flange on the retaining
ring. A 90mm f6.8 Angulon in a Synchro-Compur P fits very tightly.
Sounds like your lens board is going to need surgery. Don't try to cut
the counterbores by hand or with a Dremel tool. You need someone with a
metal lathe and a 4 jaw chuck to do the job correctly. Steve Grimes comes
to mind (www.skgrimes.com).
Tom Gould
(jgestar@aol.com)
> I find myself working on the very same problem. That is, trying to mount >a 90 f6.8 in Synchro-Compur P onto a recessed board for Graphic View. The >problem I am running into is this. The metal recessed lensboard has a very >deep flange behind the mounting hole. The shutter slips into the hole >nicely, but the threads do not extend behind the board. I can't see any way >to thread the retaining ring, there are no threads showing. Is there a way >to do this? Am I missing something here? > > Thanks a lot, > Redd Peety
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: mounting flange
Mike McDonald wrote:
> Midwest Photo (www.mpex.com) lists flanges for Ilex #4s and #5s, assuming > that's the shutter on your lens is. ($25 and $29 respectively.)
Good pointer Mike. Christine, be careful when ordering a flange for
your Kodak lens. When isn't an Ilex No. 5 an Ilex No. 5? When it's a
Kodak. MOST Ilex shutters are standard size, but for whatever reason,
many (most?) of the Kodak lenses use non-standard size Ilex shutters.
This includes the flange size. The folks at Midwest are pretty
knowledgeable and helpful, so if you tell them exactly which lens you
have (14" Commercial Ektar) they should be able to fix you up. They
probably even have a 14" Commercial Ektar on hand to check the fit.
Kerry
--
Kerry's Large Format Homepage
http://largeformat.terrashare.com
From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001
From: Johnny Deadman john@pinkheadedbug.com
Subject: Re: [Leica] Large Format lenses
Charles Harris at charles@charlesharris.com wrote:
> I've just purchased an old Linhof Technica V :). The included lenses are not > to my liking. Can anybody recommend a brand or series of large format > lenses. Those closest to the Leica look would be the most interesting. I'll > probably get something in the range of 75-90, 115-150, and a 210-240. > Fastest available f stop only. Thanks.
what lenses did you get with it?? maybe I can relieve of a couple :)
The place to look for new lenses is badger graphics.
http://www.badgergraphic.com/
Their prices are insane. Brand new top-line German LF lenses are one of
the most astounding bargains in the photographic world right now. Here are
some example prices from today:
Schneider ~ Super Symmar XL 110mm/5.6 ~ $1,195.00~ Schneider ~ Super-Angulon 65mm/5.6 ~ $ 950.00~ Schneider ~ Super-Angulon 90mm/8.0 ~ $ 810.00~ Schneider ~ Super-Angulon XL 58mm/5.6 ~ $ 895.00~ Schneider ~ Super-Angulon XL 72mm/5.6 ~ $1,150.00~ Schneider ~ Super-Angulon XL 90mm/5.6 ~ $1,195.00~ Rodenstock ~ APO-Grandagon 35mm/4.5 ~ $980.00~ Rodenstock ~ APO-Grandagon 45mm/4.5 ~ $875.00~ Rodenstock ~ APO-Grandagon 55mm/4.5 ~ $895.00~ Rodenstock ~ APO-Sironar-N 100mm/5.6 ~ $495.00~ Rodenstock ~ APO-Sironar-N 135mm/5.6 ~ $545.00~ Rodenstock ~ APO-Sironar-N 150mm/5.6 ~ $580.00~ Rodenstock ~ APO-Sironar-N 180mm/5.6 ~ $720.00~ Rodenstock ~ APO-Sironar-N 210mm/5.6 ~ $770.00~ Rodenstock ~ Grandagon-N 75mm/6.8 ~ $785.00~ Rodenstock ~ Grandagon-N 90mm/4.5 ~ $1,175.00~ Rodenstock ~ Grandagon-N 90mm/6.8 ~ $825.00~
these are NUTS!! If you don't believe me, go check out the prices on ebay
for *used* versions fo the above.
The problem with FAST LF lenses is that they are ridiculously huge. The
wide XL super angulons for example are monsters. If you want to take the
camera into the field you need to consider this.
I for example use a old and no doubt very soft Schneider Xenar 135/4.7
precisely because it is so small and light. I'd love an XL but it would
probably break my camera.
However if I had to choose one set of lenses it would be the Schneiders,
though to be honest you are unlikely to see much difference between them
and the Rodenstocks.
You may also want to consider coverage, which is important with LF, and
not positively correlated to aperture. So it's a compromise.
Jim Brick has a *very* sensible approach which is that he chooses lenses
that take the same filter sizes.
- --
John Brownlow
http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
From Camera Makers Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001
From: Leonard Robertson Leonard@harrington-wa.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] 11x14 lens
On the Bostick and Sullivan site is a list of classic and modern lenses
covering 11X14:
http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/Alt_cameras/large%20format%20lenses.htm
Assuming you will do B&W; contact printing and shoot at f45 or f64 (to get
depth of field), the difference between modern and classic lenses may not
be very noticable. Diffraction from shooting at small stops tends to
equalize optical performance. You can probably get along fine with an
older lens and save quite a bit of money that you can spend on film and
paper.
There was a thread a few days ago on rec.photo.equipment.large-format
regarding using 11X14 Fidelity x-ray film holders for LF use. One person
stated they seem to be the same as standard Fidelity sheet film holders,
only they are much cheaper from a medical supply company than from a photo
dealer. Does anyone on this group know anything about this? The cost of
11X14 holders is something you will want to check on if you are
considering this format. Holders do show up on eBay now and then, but the
better ones tend to bring pretty good money.
Leonard
you wrote:
>Hi, I might make an 11x14 and need to find out the >standard lens focal length and what lenses actually >cover 11x14. Thanks.
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Rapid rectilinears for today
andermar@teleport.com (Mark Anderson) wrote:
>Seeking opinions on using rapid rectilinear lenses today. Are any >available coated? I'll probably play with the one on grampa's No. 1A >Kodak Pocket Special. I can't recall seeing a RR advertized recently. >Looking at the sharpness of an 1880's era 8x10 albumen print I have (by >Geo. Wash. Wilson, assumed to have shot with such a lens), and knowing >that Weston did much of his work, (at least in Mexico) with one, I'm >thinking they may be worth considering for a longer lens. > >-- >Mark Anderson
I doubt that anyone has made a R-R for seventy years. They were
replaced with anastigmats rather quickly when they became available at
the beginning of the twentieth century although R-R's continued to be
found in lower priced folding cameras until the early 1930's. At that
point they were replaced with triplets, which are anastigmats. R-R's
are not cheap to make because they have two cemented interfaces which
require individual grinding of four surfaces, plus the hand work of
very accurate centering and cementing. While triplets are very
critical as to element spacing the mounting is generally cheaper than
making a decent R-R.
Any coated ones will have been coated after market. In any case,
they have only four glass air surfaces so don't have a lot of flare.
A R-R is not an anastigmat. The astigmatism is controlled by
allowing some residual field curvature. The lenses must be stopped
down to be sharp across the field but can be very good performers at
smaller stops. Most R-R lenses are about f/8. The use of the
antiquated US system of stops was especially popular for R-R lenses
for some reason and is found on Kodak cameras especially. Bausch &
Lomb made probably millions of R-R's for Kodak folders and Premo
cameras.
Most R-R's are symmetrical but there were a few triple convertibles.
The coverae can often be told from the apex distance. The longer the
lens the narrower the coverage, but the better the correction. There
were a few wide angle Rapid Rectilinears and a few of speeds faster
than f/8.
The name Rapid Rectilinear comes from the lack of geometrical
distortion and was originally a Dallmeyer trade-name. The same design
was arived at simutaneously and independantly by Steinheil, who called
his lens an Aplanat. Both Dallmeyer and Steinheil were issued patents
although Steinheil was clearly first.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001
From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Rapid rectilinears for today
Richard Knoppow wrote:
> While triplets are very critical as to element spacing ...
I have trouble comprehending this, though I have always taken it as
Gospel.
Front element focusing triplets are pretty common among older economy
class cameras: Agfa Solina, Zeiss Netar, Minolta compacts of the early
'70's....
Admittedly these are not great lenses, but they very decent performers if
slides and 8x10s are as far you go.
My quandary comes in observing they be change the element spacing to
change the focal length to change the focus point with great nonchalance.
Then there are two versions of the Agfa: one moves just the front element;
the other moves first two as a cell.
In LF applications, where a few percent error in focal length is a non
issue and focus is always achieved by moving the entire lens, why is
cell spacing critical?
This question has been bugging me for a long time now, and I can't make
head or tail of it. I put it up to the 'bumble bee' principle - bees
can't fly, triplets can't have the element spacing altered.....
> A R-R is not an anastigmat. The astigmatism is controlled by > allowing some residual field curvature.
A small amount of field curvature only seems to me to be important for
copy work. Everything else I know of is roundish. And add selective
focus on top of that, who knows/cares where the exact plane of focus
lies.... Or is the problem with field curvature only apparent in real
life when doing landscape work?
Personally, I like fooling around with old lenses. The only problem I
have had is high contrast subjects - highlights sometimes cast comets
and clouds of flare into the shadows, though a little bit of shadow
fill with a white card will overcome the flare and make a much better
picture besides. I check for flare with the GG out of the camera and
look for flare ups at the back of the lens as I traverse (scan w/ ye
olde eyeball and craning neck) the image.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Rapid rectilinears for today
...
The front element focusing lenses pick up abberations as spacing
changes. Most of them are compromised for best performance at
infinity, the idea being that some loss of detail is acceptable for
closeups.
To get some idea of the effect changes of element spacing get one of
the free optical lens design programs available on the web. The
easiest to use is OSLO, the freebee version will do enough surfaces to
set up a Dagor, I think twelve. Two surfaces are the object and image.
The sample lens is a triplet. You can set up other lenses, within the
limits of the program, from patent data. The program allows changing
parameters continuously with "sliders". OSLO is the outgrowth of the
program Warren Smith used for his books.
Its hard to find precriptions for actual commercial lenses. The
patent data is often not quite right, i.e., its accurate enough for
the patent but may not be very well optimised so that the performance
is not the best the design is capable of.
Its not always obvious when some aberration has changed. The effect
can be mostly off axis and show up as an increase in coma or even loss
of chromatic correction off axis.
There is a more powerful freeware program. It used to be called KDP,
but is now called ACME or something. Its command line based and not
easy to learn but is an actual design program where OSLO-LT is more a
demonstrator of their commercial program, which is quite expensive.
See sci.optics for more.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001
From: andermar@teleport.com (Mark Anderson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Rapid rectilinears for today
Mark Anderson andermar@teleport.com wrote:
Figured out today that mine is about 130 mm f.l. ..... Will do some
testing and trial work.
Did some testing, examination of the GG and aerial image. Wide open,
f/8, it seems to have something better than 30 lpm centrally, and
something around 20 lpm peripherally. The most noticeable thing is that
curvature of field that Richard mentioned, approx. 2-3 mm over the 4x5
inch GG. I exposed some TMX closed down to f/22 and f/32. More to
follow. Interestingly, the smallest stop marked is US 64 (f/32), but
the aperture seems to close about another stop past that.
--
Mark Anderson
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Rapid rectilinears for today
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001
...
Rapid Rectilinears were designed before the invention of "Jena
glass". In designing a lens a balance is made using combinations of
positive and negative elements to correct for the various
"aberrations". The aberrations (there are seven basic ones) occur
because the elements are made with spherical surfaces, and because
glass does not bend light of all colors equally. One very important
property of glass is the ratio between its avarage index of refraction
(the amount it bends light) and its dispersion, which is the
difference in the index at different colors. When the R-R lens was
designed glass was not available with enough range of difference to
allow simultaneous correction for color and also make the lens free
from astigmatism.
Astigmatism is the inability of a lens to focus radial and
tangential lines simultaneously. If one imagines a perfect spider web,
the lens would not be in focus for the radial lines from center to
edge, and for the circular lines at the same time. If one traces the
rays of light that make up these images one will find they go throgh
different parts of the lens.
A well known trick in design is that it is possible to compensate
astigmatism by allowing some curvature of field. R-R lenses were
designed with a compromise correction; some curvature was premitted to
make the astigmatism better. Stopping down helps both but does not get
rid of them.
When Jena glass became available in the late nineteenth century a
whole new variety of lenses was designed which were corrected for
astigmatism and had flat fields. The first commercial anastigmat was
the Zeiss Protar, designed by the famous Paul Rudolph. Rudolph later
modified this design to produce the very famous Tessar.
Curiously, it turns out that an anastigmat _can_ be designed using
"old" glass, but no one discovered this until after Jena glass became
available. The lens was the Busch Omnar designed by Martin. This is a
four element air spaced type similar to the double Gauss design use in
the Wide Field Ektar and many other lenses. Because Petzval had stated
that such a result was impossible hardly anyone had even tried.
Nonetheless, the development of Jena glass types has made many
designs possible that couldn't be made with old glass. The discovery
of even more advanced glass has made possible even more designs and
also allowed the great improvement in many older designs.
After all this, Rapid Rectilinear (Also called Aplanat) lenes are
capable of surprizingly good performance. They can be very sharp in
the center of the field, and pretty good performance away from it when
stopped down.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: slberfuchs@aol.com (Ted Harris)
Date: Tue Jul 24 2001
[1] Re: 65 mm Grandagon on a Tachihara?
To second what Steve has said you will almost certainly have little
movement.
I used to have a Wista DX and a 65 mm Super Angulon and had virtually no
movement.
Ted Harris
Henniker, New Hampshire
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: argon3@aol.com (Argon3)
Date: Wed Jul 25 2001
[1] Re: 65 mm Grandagon on a Tachihara?
I have a Tachihara and even using the 90mm on it is a bit of a stretch. I
suppose that the "non-availibility" of a bag bellows is one of the
disadvantages of these cameras.
argon
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Can these lenses be used.
David davo@mitmania.net.au wrote:
>i am still learning and want to know can any of these lenses or >equipment be used for large or medium format work. > >WOLLENSAK EE 127 >TENAX GOERZ 8x14 168 MM LENS >GRISETTE,ACHROMAT 4.5 CM LENS >VOIGHTLANDER BRILLANT SKOPAR 4.5 LENS >VOIGHTLANDER PERKEO 3 X 4 SKOPAR LENS > >VOIGHTLANDER BESSA ONE WITH YASKAR 105 MM 4.5 LENS > VOIGHTLANDER PERKEO 3 X 4 SKOPAR LENS
Most of these are small or medium format folding cameras.
The Skopar is Voigtlander's version of a Tessar, a good lens. Tessar
type lenses have a maximum coverage of around 60deg at infinity focus
meaning it will cover a diagonal slightly larger than the focal
length.
The other names are cameras.
Tenax is a Goerz/Zeiss name used for several camers ranging from a
folding 35mm to a good quality box camera. A 168mm lens will cover 4x5
but I suspect this is a simple doublet. 8x14 is CM not inches.
Never heard of Grisette, but achromat suggests a simple doublet lens.
Brilliant, Bessa, and Perkeo are Voigtlander camera names. The Bessa
is a good quality folding camera but it came in several versions and
price ranges the difference being mostly the lenses. I have no idea
what a Yaskar lens is but suspect its one of the cheaper ones, perhaps
a triplet.
Some of these may be useful for special effects but the focal
lengths are mostly much too short.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: lens recoating by your local optician?
Jean-David Beyer
There are a couple of common methods of mounting lenses in cells.
For air spaced elements the cell will usualy have a threaded retaining
ring on the front or a threaded back cap. The threads of front
retaining rings are no always obvious, for instance, on some Kodak
lenses they are painted over. These rings are removed with a friction
tool consisting of a tube of suitable diameter with a rubber ring on
teh end, or even with double stick tape over the end. Its _never_
necessary to drill holes in these things.
The other method of mounting, often found on rear cells of Tessars,
is what is called a "burnished" or "spun in" mount. These are used
where it is not contemplated that the glass will ever have to be
removed. Before mounting the cell has a lip around the inside edge,
after the lens is placed in the mount it is spun on a lathe and the
lip burnished down to hold the lens in place. This type of mount is
very accurate and secure, but getting the lens out is difficult.
Generally, the burnished lip must be machined off. A new retaining cap
must be made to remount the lens. Sometimes lenses can be cemented in
place but its considered a makeshift.
This sort of very fine machine work is the perview of people like
Steve Grimes. Removing and remounting the lens is probably more
difficult then recementing it.
There are two types of modern cement. One is cured with UV light,
like the new style tooth fillings. The other is a binary cement,
similar to the familar epoxy cements. One mixes a resin with a
hardener and uses the combination. Summers sells a room temperature
cluring version and an oven curing version. The oven curing type
requires only a very moderate temperature, around 150F, for an hour.
I prefer it to the room temperature stuff because the uncured life
is many hours. Actually, even the oven curing kind will cure at room
temperature in a few days.
Cementing with this stuff is easier than with Canada Balsam, ane
much more reliable. Since the Balsam also requires baking it really
has no advantage at all other than being easy to get apart.
---
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001
Canada Balsam melts at some relatively low temperature. I forget
exactly what but someting on the order of 150F. Lenses are usually
separted by heating gently on a hot plate but I've found warm water
does it.
Current synthetic cements must be separated at high temperature.
Summers Optical sells a special solvent for their cements which works
at 340F.
One of the advantages of the newer cementes is that they don't
crystalize at very low temperatures or separate at moderately high
temperatures.
They began to be used when high altitude aerial survey work was
started around the late 1930's. Aerial lenses made with conventional
Balsam lasted about ten seconds when subjected to the temperatures at
high altitudes. The entire cemented layer turns milk white. I've
recemented a couple of old aerial lenses for practice.
Coating of photographic lenses is done in high vacuum. There is
considerable temperature rise but the vacuume itself may cause
problems for cemented surfaces.
I am not sure what process is used for eyeglasses but it can't
involve much heat since plastic lenses are coated. I rather suspect is
is a chemical bath. I think a web search would find out.
I don't know if this process is applicable to photographic lenses or
not. It might work for uncoated lenses.
Lenses with damaged coatings must have the old coating removed, done
now mostly with a chemical bath in a special machine. The lenes
definitly must be separated for this process.
---
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001
not sure about the 47 f5.6 super angulon when compared with Biogon of the
SWC, but I did compare the 65 f5.6 super angulon (Linhof MC version) side
by side with SWC Biogon ( CF version ). I considered at low light level
indoor conditions, the super angulon produced better contrast. higher
colour saturation and more 3D feel than the Biogon. The film size was
slightly larger for the Linhof though ( 56 by 72 mm ).
Older Linhof Technika 6x9 can be have for a reasonable amount if you look
around and provide a limited range of movement, the built quality is much
higher than the Mamiya Press. ...
Date: 21 Jul 2001
Well, they make a great little landscape camera. The roll film backs work
OK for me but I normally only do 11x14's. I like being able to shoot
close if I want without alot of extra tubes etc. And you can use it hand
helded if you want. As for optics lot's of modern 100-105's work fine.
I use a 100 APO-Sironar. And maybe the new Super Symmar 80mm XL will fit.
That lens should compare with all current medium format glass. And did I
mention movements.
Chuck
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001
This is probably not something you want to tackle on your own. First, it
is extremely difficult to get the right size. Second, unless you use the
right equipment, you are likely to warp the metal. Wooden boards are
easier to work with, but metal takes a small machine shop--a drill press
and the correct cutter at a minimum.
I strongly recommend either sending the board to Steve Grimes or having a
local machine shop bore the hole. They will sock you with the shop
minimum, but the circle will be centered, the right diameter, and the
metal will remain flat. To find a local machine shop, look up machine
shops in the yellow pages, and then ask what the shop minimum is. They
will ask you what you want to do. Most places will recommend someone else
if they are too busy or too large to do the job.
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001
aardor@optonline.net wrote:
I thought Quang-Tuan Luong had a listing for this at his site at:
http://www.ai.sri.com/~luong/photography/lf/lenseslist.html
No luck. There is an f/6.3, 215mm Acuton, but not an f/4.8
I am pretty sure this is lens is identical to the Calumet Caltar
Series-S, 215mm, f/4.8 The catalogue shows this as a Plasmat type (six
elements in four groups) with a coverage angle of 71deg, or 310mm
diameter image circle, at infinity focus, enough to cover 8x10 without
movements. Its coated and should have excellent color correction.
The rear element can be used alone for a focal length of 14", speed
f/10. The single element should be stopped down to below f/22 for
reasonable sharpness.
Undoubtedly this is the same lens sold by Ilex under its own
trade-name.
The Ilex lenses made for Calumet have a good reputation. I have no
idea of the performance of this specific lens but its probably very
good to excellent, although it may not be up to the current best
lenses.
---
This can be a home project, but it is best done with a drill press. First,
you want the drill rpm to be low enough. Second, find the center of the
board. Use a nail or and awl and a hammer to put a divot right where you
want to drill Clamp the lensboard to a thick piece of wood, a 2x4 works.
Drill, using a proper sized bi-metal hole saw, slowly through the metal
board. The center guide drill of the hole saw will go into the wooden
board beneath. When you get about 1/2 of the way through, flip the
lensboard over. There will be a small 1/4" or so hole from the guide bit.
Simply clamp the board so the guide bit goes right in this hole that it's
already drilled. This will register the circular bit. Then, slowly drill
through the board. You may have to do a little filling to remove burrs.
Peter
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001
"Francis A. Miniter" miniter@attglobal.net wrote:
This sounds like a very elaborate way to do the job. I've cut both
metal and wood lens boards with a fly-cutter on a plain drill press.
This is thin stuff and doesn't need heavy machinery to cut cleanly.
With the fly cutter one drills a pilot hold and uses the cutter part
way from one side and finishes from the other.
...
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001
Benno Jones ganesh_bj@nospam.hotmail.com wrote:
You've received many appropriate responses, but not what I feel is the
most direct low tech method. (Keeping in mind that this need not be
done to high accuracy.)
Mark the hole with pencil or scribe from an existing lensboard or use a
compass.
Drill a small, e.g. 1/4 inch pilot hole near the circle, but on the
inside.
Holding the board is some sort of vice, use a coping saw with a fine
toothed blade to directly saw out the hole, (following the inside of the
circle.) (You take off the blade from the saw frame, put it thru the
pilot hole, and reattach the blade to the saw frame and saw away. The
blade should be attached to cut on the pull stroke and should be fully
tensioned. If you don't have a straight pull, or cut on the push
stroke, be prepared to break a few blades.)
Clean up the hole with a round or half-round file. You're done.
Been there, done that. (Despite having a pretty well equiped shop, but
no lathe or milling machine.)
--
Date: 10 Aug 2001
....
I cut lensboards every week or so. About 10 minutes to setup and 5 minutes
to cut. A lathe is the only way to go. The lensboard must be held as flat
as possible in the lathe chuck and the face of the lensboard will be as
well faced as the board is mounted in the lathe chuck. The lathe faces the
surface almost perfetly and this is the most critical part. A fit of .010
is usually fine. I routinely get them as close as a few 1000's. No big
deal. Most lenses/shutters are clamped in with a retaining ring and will
not move under ordinary circumstances. A mill takes too much time. And
unless you have a multitude of cutters or a CNC mill it will not do the
lensboard as well as a lathe.
Bob AZ
From Camera Fixing Mailing List;
I have been using flat ABS plastic one-eight inch thick to make lens
boards for my 4x5 and my enlarger. I don't know if this will work with
the Graphics. The material is available from plastic suppliers in 4x8
sheets for about $50. I have gone to shops listed under plastics in the
yellow pages and asked for scrap. Sometimes they charge and sometimes
they don't. The ABS plastic is black and has a wrinkle finish on one side
and is smooth on the other. It is cuts with power tools although it melts
easily. It cleans up well with a file and sandpaper. It is rigid enough
for a lens board but soft enough to trim with a pocket knife. And it
looks pretty good when you're done.
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001
I tested a 65 mm Super Angulon on a Tachihara. It worked fine. Movements
were restricted but there were some though I can't quantify their extent.
I'd say that the lens should work well for you unless you're into areas of
photography that typically require extensive movements such as product or
architectural interiors.
I don't know why the person who uses a 90 mm lens is having difficulties.
I used my 90 mm F 5.6 Super Angulon regularly on the Tachihara and had no
problems at all, plenty of room for movements at least for the type of
photography I do (landscapes, building exteriors, no commercial). Possibly
he has an older bellows that is stiff. One of the nice things about the
Tachihara is its ability to use lenses ranging from 400 mm telephoto (300
mm normal) to at least 65 mm without the need for a bag bellows. If you go
to Tuan's large format home page, I believe (but am not sure) there is
some information there from Tuan on his use of an even wider lens (58 mm?)
with the Tachihara.
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001
...
I have to agree with Brian. I have used a Tachihara for over 20 years,
and I regularly use a 65mm f/8 Super Angulon. It is true that the bellows
compression does somewhat limit lens movement. But, this particular lens
allows very little lens movement anyway. If an f/5.6 Super Angulon (that
has a larger image circle than the f/8) is used, I would recommend using a
recessed lensboard. For generel use, you should experience few if any
problems with lens movement.
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001
Tan wrote:
I had one of these once, and it is a good performer within it's limited
image circle (spec - 170mm). Problem is, it wasn't all that much
smaller and lighter than my 90mm f8 Nikkor to make it worth the much
smaller coverage. It takes 58mm filters, but comes in a special version
of the Copal #1 shutter. It was more short and squat than the Nikkor,
but only weighed one ounce less (11.5 oz. - which makes it over twice as
heavy as the Congo). With the Geronar WA, you're probably less likely
to see the variation in quality I did when buying my WA Congo (see my
comments at the link above), and therefore less likely to get a dog, but
the weight savings are not nearly as great. It's also 2 oz. heavier,
nearly two stops slower and has a lot less coverage than the 80mm f4.5
Super Symmar XL (but then it can be had for about $900 less, too).
It's easy to find excellent performing lenses that are truly compact and
lightweight in the 120mm - 450mm focal lengths, finding a small,
lightweight wide angle with good performance is much tougher. I tested
a LOT of Angulons (some were excellent, some were real dogs), a couple
WF Ektars and five Congos (three 90s and two 120s) before I settled on
the 90mm WA Congo I've been using for backpacking for the last two
years. It offered the best combination of small size, lightweight,
sharpness, contrast and color balance of all the lenses I tried - plus
it came in a modern Copal shutter and only cost $275 new when I bought
mine. As I mentioned on my lightweight lenses pages, the Congo quality
was inconsistent, and of the five I tested, I only found one that I
thought was worth keeping. Now that I have that one, I plan to keep it
for a long time.
Of course, with the 80mm SS XL, Schneider has given us a terrific option
in the lightweight 4x5 wide angle field. Problem is, it's an expensive
option (but worth it for many users) and based on my experience, it
requires a center filter for my use (4x5 high contrast color
transparencies). It's a great lens, and I'm thrilled to have another
option, especially a modern, multicoated lens with excellent performance
and larger coverage, in a lightweight wide angle.
Kerry
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001
Tan wrote:
When I bought my Congo, they were being imported by Badger Graphics at
VERY attractive prices. They had just started importing them and were
as curious about the quality as I was. So, they sent me five to test.
Most tested reasonably well in the center of the field at normal working
apertures (with one exception), but were soft in the corners even when
stopped down to f22 (again with one exception). The one that tested
well corner-to-corner at f16 and f22 is the one I kept. Badger no
longer imports the Congos - probably due to the variable quality.
Badger is a reputable dealer who stands behind what they sell, and when
the goods arriving from the manufacturer are of suspect quality, I'm
sure it makes their life difficult.
Bromwell also imports the Congo lenses under their Osaka brand name.
They are priced higher than the Congos were from Badger, but they offer
a warranty (90 day unconditional money back guarantee last time I
checked). I don't know if they do any testing or additional quality
control on the lenses that they brand with the Osaka name - so I don't
know how their quality level compares to the standard Congos. Probably
a mute point for this thread, since they don't import the 90mm WA
anyway, just the 120mm WA and several of the Tessar types and a couple
telephotos.
WRT weight, my 90mm WA Congo weighs just over 5 oz. (145g). The 90mm f8
Nikkow SW weighs 355g (12.5 oz.) and the 90mm f8 WA Geronar weighed 11.5
oz. (325g). I don't have a 90mm f8 Fujinon to weigh, but according to
the Fujinon brochures, current models weigh 407g - or about 3 oz. more
than a 90mm f8 WA Geronar.
Like I said, other than the new 80mm Super Symmar XL, finding a truly
lightweight 4x5 wide angle is a difficult proposition. This was the
whole reason Chris Perez and I began testing lenses - to find a couple
good lightweight wide angles. We figured we'd just test a few 90mm
Angulons and a 100mm WF Ektar or two and cherry pick the best two for
our own use. Well, it grew from there and sort of got out of hand - but
at least I met my goal and I'm satisfied with the 90mm WA Congo that I
kept. It makes a dandy little wide angle for backpacking (just have to
watch the coverage) and some of my favorite images of the past two years
have been made with this lens. So, in the end, all that testing did pay
dividends.
Kerry
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001
Kerry L. Thalmann wrote:
Just a brief P.S. to my pervious post...
Badger dropping the Congo lenses probably also had a LOT to do with
exchange rates. When they first started importing the Congos, the
dollar:yen rate was very favorable and allowed them to sell the little
90mm WA Congo for $275. This is only slightly more than the cost of a
new Copal shutter alone and put the lenses in the same price range as 40
- 50 year old used 90mm Angulons and 100mm WF Ektars. Not bad for a
brand new, multicoated lens in a modern Copal shutter. By the time they
stopped importing the Congos, the fluctuations in the exchange rate had
brought Badger's selling price up tp $395. At that price, given the
variable quality of the Congo lenses, they become much less attractive
to potential buyers.
Kerry
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001
TNgu wrote:
First of all, if you use one element, the focal length will be longer,
not shorter. So you would not consider it to be a wide angle.
I have a Caltar-S 210mm f/5.6 lens that, judging from the aperture
plate on the shutter, is convertable. (I think the Caltar-S lenses
(mid 1970s) were Schneider.) I took off the front element and used
just the back. It is not too good that way; I assume it is a Plasmat.
I also have a Wisner Convertable Plasmat set (for 4x5) with 5 cells in
it (2 - 250mm, 350mm, 400mm, and 450mm), so you can get from about
150mm up to 450mm focal lengths. These have been satisfactory in every
way. Using a single cell is not quite so sharp, but there are a lot of
combinations of the 5 cells that work for almost everything I need. I
imagine (but I have not done this) if you test them on an optical
bench, they may not come out as sharp as a custom-designed non
convertable lens, but as far as the final print is concerned with
moderate enlargements (say up to 4x), they are completely adequate.
--
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001
menaulus@yahoo.com (TNgu) wrote:
Burkhardt Kiegeland has given a pretty complete answer to this. I
will only add a couple of things.
Symmetrical lenses depend on the symmetry for correction of coma,
lateral color, and geometrical distortion. These corrections are
pretty much lost when a single cell is used. The single cells of Zeiss
Convertible Protars _are_ corrected for coma but can still have color
fringing. Dagors, although patented and sold as convertible lenses,
really are not since the individual cells must be used at very small
stops (f/45) to get rid of most of the coma. The same for the
Schneider Angulon, originally sold as a triple convertible. Its design
is very similar to the Dagor and has similar characteristics and
limitations.
Modern Plasmat lenses, like the Schneider f/5.6 Symmar (the older
f/6.8 version is a Dagor knock-off), can be made with coma correction
in the individual cells, like a Convertible Protar, but correcting
them this way tends to compromise the performance of the lens as an
assembly. The single cells can still be used provided the performance
is satisfactory for a given application, but then so can a desk
magnifier:-) The f/4.8 Ilex Acuton is a good quality Plasmat type lens
also made as an OEM product for Calumet and sold by them under the
Caltar name.
Coma is a rather disturbing aberration which shows up as a smearing
of the image away from the center. It gets worse as you move away from
the optical axis of the lens. Small highlights become tear-drop
shaped, the direction of the tail can be either toward or away from
the center, depending on the balance of correction in the lens.
Come becomes less as the lens is stopped down. The symmetry of
symetrical lenses exactly cancells coma when the entire optical system
is symmetrical, i.e., at 1:1 object to image size, but its
substantially cancelled even at infinity. Since the correction for
coma is either reduced or non-existant when only half the lens is used
the image quality suffers greatly.
IMHO about the best of the convertibles is the old Zeiss Convertible
Protar. The rear cells of a Schneider Symmar are not bad but in
comparing my lenses I think the old Zeiss lens is slightly better.
Remember convertibles were popular when most LF images were contact
printed so the image quality requirement was considerably less than
now. A complete Dagor or Protar is still a very respectible lens, but
I must agree with Burkhardt that modern lenses are better.
The Apochromatic Artar (of any age) is an extremely sharp lens. Its
drawback is that its coverage is very narrow. For pictorial purposes
one will cover a diagonal about equal to its focal length, at infinity
focus. A Dagor will cover nearly twice the angle as will some modern
Plasmat types. The benefit of the Apo Artar is that they are very
cheap compared to, say, a current Rodenstock Apo-Sironar, which is
IMHO, an outstanding lens despite my erstwhile discussions with Bob
Salomon re: the definition of apo.
---
From: Stephe ms_stephe@excite.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: to sell or not to sell the 5x7
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>> Prints at 16x20 have as much detail and tonality as the 5x7,
>
> Given comparable film and lenses, that should not be so.
The problem is there are no LF lenses at any price that can resolve what
those fuji rangefinder lenses can. Most are better that 100 lpmm. WIth
something like delta 100, the difference in prints that size isn't going to
be huge, especially at normal viewing distances.
>> and the negs hardly ever need retouching. The 5x7 inevitably catches a
>> dust or a
>> unidentifiable something from processing or handeling.
>
> I do not understand. There is no inherent reason why roll film should be
> more free from dust than sheet film.
Your kidding right?
Roll film is protected from getting dust -before exposure- by the fact it's
in a roll backed with paper. Bare sheet film can easily get dust on it
while loading the holder in the darkroom, from the creases in the bellows,
from the dark slide/light trap/holder etc.
I've never seen a thread in the med format group about how to get rid of
dust spot problems but that is a comon discusion topic here. I've never
seen dust spots on a roll of film but seen LOTS of them on my sheet film.
It's strange but never notice spots on my chromes and color negs doesn't
seem bad either but almost all my B&W; negs have at least a spot or two
somewhere on them. Static charge or something?
--
Stephe
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 5 element Xenar
you wrote:
>I heard back in tha' day' old Ansel had lenses where he'd pull out an
>element and presto chango different lens! anytruth to this?
>Rob
>
>J Patric DahlTn wrote:
Well, this might apply to any of many commercially available convertible
lenses. He undoubtedly used them. Convertibles were popular from before
1900 until the 1940s. The best of them is the Zeiss Convertible Protar but
probably the Cook Convertible made by TT&H; is of equal correction but they
are rare lenses.
Many lenses will still work with part removed. For instance a Tessar will
make a somewhat longer and very poor lens with the front cell removed. The
front cell of a Tessar has little power but most of the corrections.
However the rear cell will make a usable image when stopped down a lot.
Useful for special effects.
Any symmetrical or semi-symmetrical lens can be used as a convertible
although the image quality may not be wonderful.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 5 element Xenar
you wrote:
>Do you think I can expect a result similar to the old two element "Landscape
>lens"?
>
>/Patric
>
>
>>From: Richard Knoppow:
>> A single element of most symmetrical or semi-symmetrical lenses can be
>>used alone, but the image quality will not be very good. Dialyte types,
>>like the Unofokal, Goerz Dogmar, Goerz Apochromatic Artar, Kodak 203mm,
>>f/7.7 Ektar or Anastigmat, etc., have no correction for coma. Neither does
>>the Dagor or Dagor derivatives like the Schneider Angulon (sold originally
>>as a tripple convertible!). Such lenses will perform at very small stops
>>vis: f/45. The Zeiss Convertible Protar (Series VII or VIIA) has individual
>>elements which are corrected for coma and perform much better as
>>convertibles although not any better as combined lenses.
>>----
>>Richard Knoppow
>>Los Angeles, CA, USA
>>dickburk@ix.netcom.com
You just have to try it. Generally the convertibles, like the Dagor, are
fairly sharp in the center of the image but fall apart as you move away
from the center until stopped down a lot. The Dagor cells are not corrected
for coma, the symmetry of the combined lens corrects this when its used
whole. Coma is a particularly ugly aberration resulting in tear-drop shaped
blur spots which point toward or away from the image center, depending on
the design of the lens. Spherical aberration, to which coma is related, is
uniform all over and forms halos around highlights, the basis for many soft
focus lenses. Coma is not pleasant to look at.
The Zeiss Convertible Protar, convertible Symmar, and a couple of other
convertibles are correct for coma in the individual cells, making their
image quality a lot better than a half Dagor. Spherical aberration is no
greater since symmetry does not cancel it. In fact, it adds.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 5 element Xenar
Roberto Freeman at mammal1@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> I heard back in tha' day' old Ansel had lenses where he'd pull out an
> element and presto chango different lens! anytruth to this?
> Rob
Yep, convertible lenses. Schneider still makes them for Wisner. You
get two or more focal lengths in one lens set using one shutter.
Bob
From: camartsmag@aol.com (CamArtsMag)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 04 Feb 2002
Subject: Re: Landscape/Nature photography and camera movements
Subject: Landscape/Nature photography and camera movements
From: rbellant@yorku.ca (Rocco Bellantoni)
Date: 2/4/02
I just bought a LF field camera and will purchase the lens shortly.
But before I do that, I would like to query LF landscape/nature
photographers to find out what camera movements are typically used and
which are rarely used so that I may determine the amount of coverage I
will require for my lens. My first lens pruchase will be a shorter
lens, something in the 90 - 125 range, possibly even a 135.
I would recommend one of the following books
Large Format Nature Photography by Jack Dykinga
Using the View Camera that I wrote for Amphoto
both are available from Amazon.Com
Front and rear tilt are the most commonly used movements. They are not used th
change the depth of field but are used to rotate the plane of sharp focus to
more closely align with the plane of the subject. For this purpose they are
interchangeable however wit thhe rear tilt you will change the shape(s) of
things and size relationships between objects in different parts of the image
area.
steve simmons
viewcamera magazine
From: largformat@aol.com (Largformat)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 04 Feb 2002
Subject: Re: Landscape/Nature photography and camera movements
A little more info
The 4x5 negative takes an image circle of approx 165mm to cover with no
movements. rear swing and tilt do not require the extra coverage that front
swing and tilt require. Be careful of the 135mm focal length. Many of them were
really designed for the 6x9 format.
steve simmons
From: slberfuchs@aol.com (Ted Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 04 Feb 2002
Subject: Re: Landscape/Nature photography and camera movements
I agree with Steve and one additional point. I find that after swings and
tilts my most commonly used movement is front rise.
Ted Harris
Resource Strategy
Henniker, New Hampshire
From: "Gene Johnson" genej2@cox.net
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Homebrew shutters
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002
Murray,
I don't know if you'd consider this a homebrewed shutter, but have you
considered using an fp shutter from an old speed graphic? I am using such
a setup with some big aero lenses myself. I cut away all but the portion
necessary to house the shutter, and mounted it on a strong base with a
homemade focusing rack. Old Speeds with missing parts are cheap and offer
fast effective exposure times, though not so fast actual exposure times.
Mine is a 4x5 though my camera started out as a 3x4. If I had to do it over
again, I probably would go with a 4x5 to get more room in there. one of the
lenses I'm using is a 3 inch wide angle that is physically huge and the rear
element just barely fits.
Gene
From: david@meiland.com (David Meiland)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Opinions on 65mm for 4x5
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002
"Terrance Wong" twd@telus.net wrote:
>Any opinions on 65mm lens from Nikkor, Rodenstock, or Schneider? I'm
>looking for an ultra wide angle lens for my Technikardan.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Terrance
I've used the Schneider Super-Angulon 65/8 and found it very
difficult, due to a significant hot spot in the center of the glass.
More recently I've used the Nikkor SW 54/4 and found it to be MUCH
better, with more even illumination of the glass. I haven't explored
the limits of coverage for either lens... but they both worked fine
for the basic shots I've done with them. The Calumet catalog lists all
of the wide angles on p.34 as having 170mm image circles.
I'm sure you're aware that foregound elements near the edge of the
frame will be severely distorted. I did some interiors recently in a
small bathroom, where a 65mm lens is a must, and the round sink looks
oval shaped (not so odd until you go into the room and see that it's
round!). Nothing you can do about that if you want to see the whole
room.
---
David Meiland
Oakland, California
http://davidmeiland.com/
From: Art Reitsch ar7500@olympus.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Opinions on 65mm for 4x5
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002
I just got the 65/8 and it's a little difficult to work with: the
ground glass image is pretty dark around the edges. Also, I found that
it must be centered relative to the ground glass. My first shot with it
bit off the lower corners. I tried again, making sure the lens was
centered vertically and the image looks fine. On that shot the upper
part is blank sky and and lower is blank water -- I see no problems in
the corners so, in fact, the lens covers 4x5. It's quite small and
light, by the way.
Are you sure Barnbaum has a 65? I know he carries a 47mm lens. Don
Kirby was given a 58mm as a gift, didn't think he'd use it much, but
uses it quite a bit now with his Palouse and southern Utah work. He
likes it a lot.
Art
Dr. Dagor wrote:
> I'd be sure to include the Super Angulon XL 58mm on your list. I've seen
> some prints Bruce Barnbaum did with his, and it seems to give you some
> options in landscape and architecture that the 65's can't muster. It's sort
> of like the difference between a 24mm and a 21mm in shooting with a 35mm.
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 165mm lens for 4x5
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002
"Stanley K. Patz" skp113@hotmail.com wrote:
>To the group,
>
>I have some lenses 210mm and up for studio work and some lenses 125mm
>and down for scenic and architectural work. My problem is that I
>occasionally need something in between for proper image sizing; that
>would be about 167mm.
>
>Last year I bought an Ilex Paragon 165mm f4.5 in a nice Acme #3 shutter.
>That was fine until my last job in which some flare leaked into the
>frame. The lens is uncoated - or the coating has been cleaned off.
>
>So I just got another Ilex, an Ilex-Caltar 165mm f6.3. It looks like a
>nice little 50's lens with a definite blue coating. I just mounted it on
>my Cambo and was surprised - shocked - to see that this lens does not
>cover 4x5 evenly until about f16.5! Stopped to f45, it may just throw a
>200mm circle, enough for about 18mm of shift or rise. That my be OK for
>a field camera, where you don't do a lot of movements, but is not so
>good for commercial work.
>
>I know the market pretty well; there just are not a lot of 165mms out
>there. I would like something at least as good as an old Symmar or
>reformulated Tessar. I am aware of the Gold dot Dagors (way overpriced)
>and the occasional 165mm Angulon, is there anything else?
>
>I know I can get a good 150mm anywhere, anytime. Must I settle for that
>obvious choice?
>
>Stan Patz NYC
I am not sure which lens the Caltar is but Ilex made a series of
f/6.3 Tessar type lenses which were intended to compete with the Kodak
Commercial Ektar. They are not as good as the Ektar but are still very
good lenses. The coverage of a Tessar goes up as the lens is made
slower, an f/6.3 Tessar of 165mm FL should cover 4x5 and be sharp at
the corners at around f/8 to f/11. At f/22 it should have adequate
coverage for moderate movements. These lenses date from the mid 1960s.
It sounds like something is wrong with this lens.
Your other Ilex lens is probably an older one which was never
coated. Coatings can't be cleaned off. They are nearly as hard as the
glass and are bonded with it.
If you are going to use extensive movements you need a lens with
inherently wide coverage. A modern Plasmat type will do it, or a
Dagor, although it won't be as sharp as the modern lens.
165mm is the calculated diagonal of a 4x5. The actual diagonal of
4x5 sheet film is smaller because the film is smaller than 4x5. The
diagonal is about 152mm. 4x5 glass plates are actually 4x5.
165mm is now an odd size, I don't know of any modern lenses in this
FL.
About Dagors. The Gold-Dot was the last of the breed. I think all
Gold-Dots were made by Kern Optical in Switzerland after the
aquisition of Goerz by Schneider. Some earlier Dagors were sold as
"Golden Dagor". These are the ones often called a Gold Rim Dagor. The
polished front cell was an advertizing ploy, there is no optical
difference between these and earlier plain Dagors. The performance of
Dagor lenses is fairly consistent, but as with all older lenses there
was enough manufacturing variation to make individual examination good
practice.
There are a number of lenses of around 180mm to 190mm, one of those
might be close enough to work for your application.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Stanley K. Patz" skp113@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 165mm lens for 4x5
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002
To Richard and the group,
AFTER I bought this Ilex-Caltar, I looked in my files and found an a
little Ilex promotional folder describing their offerings. It is
undated, but must be from the late '60s when I was building a large
format system of my own. They show a 165mm F6.3 Acutar (Tessar type) for
4x5 with an angle of view of 58*. The coverage is listed as 6.4" or
162.6mm - just covering 4x5. Not stated, but coverage is almost always
at f22. That would confirm what I see, and the chopped corners I get. I
am all but certain it is the same as the Caltar.
In the '60s, the 8x10 equipment I was issued had a 165mm Gold Ring
Dagor.I know people talk about this lens as suitable fo8x10, but believe
me, it just covers. I found that out using too much rise on an outdoor
architectural shot and getting a nice black vignette.
I will probably go to the shorter side - 150mm - would be more useful to me.
Stan Patz
www.PatzImaging.com
From: James Meckley jmeckley@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 165mm lens for 4x5
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002
...(above post quoted)..
Yes, this is the same lens; Ilex, of course, made them for Calumet,
where they were sold as "Ilex-Caltars". Ilex sold a few themselves as
"Acutars" and B&J; sold a few more under the "Orbit" marque. I would
date your brochure as 1963 or 1964.
James Meckley
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 165mm lens for 4x5
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002
I am not sure which lens the Caltar is but Ilex made a series of
f/6.3 Tessar type lenses which were intended to compete with the Kodak
Commercial Ektar. They are not as good as the Ektar but are still very
good lenses. The coverage of a Tessar goes up as the lens is made
slower, an f/6.3 Tessar of 165mm FL should cover 4x5 and be sharp at
the corners at around f/8 to f/11. At f/22 it should have adequate
coverage for moderate movements. These lenses date from the mid 1960s.
It sounds like something is wrong with this lens.
Your other Ilex lens is probably an older one which was never
coated. Coatings can't be cleaned off. They are nearly as hard as the
glass and are bonded with it.
If you are going to use extensive movements you need a lens with
inherently wide coverage. A modern Plasmat type will do it, or a
Dagor, although it won't be as sharp as the modern lens.
165mm is the calculated diagonal of a 4x5. The actual diagonal of
4x5 sheet film is smaller because the film is smaller than 4x5. The
diagonal is about 152mm. 4x5 glass plates are actually 4x5.
165mm is now an odd size, I don't know of any modern lenses in this
FL.
About Dagors. The Gold-Dot was the last of the breed. I think all
Gold-Dots were made by Kern Optical in Switzerland after the
aquisition of Goerz by Schneider. Some earlier Dagors were sold as
"Golden Dagor". These are the ones often called a Gold Rim Dagor. The
polished front cell was an advertizing ploy, there is no optical
difference between these and earlier plain Dagors. The performance of
Dagor lenses is fairly consistent, but as with all older lenses there
was enough manufacturing variation to make individual examination good
practice.
There are a number of lenses of around 180mm to 190mm, one of those
might be close enough to work for your application.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Front element question
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002
bpnp@sover.net wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>My 5x7 Linhof Tech3 is equipped with a Rodenstock
>210 /5.6 Sironar-N as its normal lens. Today I removed the front element and
>looked though GG and I saw (as expected) a "telephoto" affect. Of course the
>edges were not sharp but as I stopped down they seem to come into focus.My
>question is, do other LF use this lens or similar lenses with out the front
>element as their telephoto? How are the f/stops effected? It would save some
>weight/space in the old carry case if I could leave my tele out . However Im
>not so sure Im comfortable exposing my iris blades to the elements. Its mud
>season here in Vermont!
>
>Thanks
>Nelson
The Sironar is one of several types of lenses which can be used as
convertibles. While its cells are not optimized for this use the iamge
quality is still pretty good, especially if its stopped down quite a
bit. Lenses like the Dagor and Zeiss Series Va Protar were sold as
convertible lenses, the Protars being often sold in sets of several
focal lengths.
They symmetry of these lenses, when used complete, automatically
corrects, or at least substantially reduces, some aberrations, so the
quality of the single sections is not as good as the entire lens, but
again, is useful for some purposes.
Non-symmetrical types, like the Tessar, are not usable as
convertibles, although you will get an image of sorts from the rear
cell of a Tessar.
Ideally, the cells of a convertible should be used behind the iris
since some aberrations are minimized this way, but they can be used on
the front as well, with some reduction of the bellows draw required,
and not a lot of image degradation.
The principle points of a single meniscus type lens, which is what
all these are, lie on the surface or outside of the lens. The
principle points are where the image appears to come from. the second
principle point on the cave side of the lens is somewhere outside the
lens. So, a single cell used on the rear is actually a somewhat
retrofocus lens rather than telephoto. It becomes somewhat telephoto
when its facing the other way, which is why the required bellows draw
is significantly less when used on the front of the shutter.
You are using the term "telephoto" in your post to indicate a longer
than normal focus lens but these are not true telephoto lenses where
the second principle point is made to lie in front of the lens thus
shortening the bellows draw needed for it.
The speed of the individual Symmar cells well be around f/12. The
image quality away from the center will become reasonably sharp around
f/32. You will have to calculate the stops.
You will also have to measure the focal length. This is not hard to
do if only approximate accuracy is needed.
The simplest way is to mount the lens so that you can extend it
enough to get a 1:1 size image of something, a small ruler is a good
target. When a lens is focused for exactly 1:1 image to object size it
is the image is exactly four times the focal length from the object.
This will require more bellows draw than the Linhoff has but you can
makeshift something, say a simple box camera using a cardboard box, to
make the measurement.
If you are intersted also finding the principle points you need to
find the infinity focus position of the lens. In the absense of a very
distance object this can be found for any lens by a technique known as
autocollimation. You need a small mirror to fit over the front of the
lens. It can be an ordinary shaving mirror although a first-surface
mirror will give a better image.
Make a small light source. In fact for making the measurement on the
camera you can just hold a pencil flash light against the ground glass
near, but not at, the center. The lens and mirror will reflect an
image of the light back to the ground glass.
Focus it as sharply as you can. The lens is now exactly at infinity
focus. This trick is also useful in setting up infinity stops. If you
now measure one focal length from the ground glass back toward the
lens the other end will be the rear, or second, principle point. For a
single cell the focus position and principle point position will be
quite different. Its an intersting experiment to do.
The difference between the exact infinity focus position of the lens
and its focus position for 1:1 is also exactly one focal length.
Have fun with your "convertible" you will find the front element
will also make a usable image.
BTW, when using two cells of a convertible together as a complete
lens the longer focal length one goes in the front for best
performance. You will find the front cell of your Sironar has a
somewhat longer focal length than the rear cell.
Convertible lenses of various sorts were very popular from the late
1890's to the 1940's.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Is there a disadvantage in huge image circle,
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002
George Huczek ghuczek@sk.sympatico.ca wrote:
>Greg wrote:
>
>> Just a question to any one that might know. If I was to use a lens suitable
>> for a 8x10 (Super Symmer XL 500 ic ) on a 4x5 therefore only effectively
>> using the centre portion of the lens would this put me at a disadvantage
>> over say using a more normal 4x5 lens (Apo Sironer S 316 ic). i.e. less
>> contrast or lppmm's?
>
>The biggest disadvantage comes from light reflecting from the inside of the
>camera. The inner surface of the bellows and the inner frame of the camera
>reflect a small amount of light, even if they are flat black. It is difficult
>to make a black surface completely non-reflective. This may lead to a loss of
>image contrast due to flare because of the large image circle reflecting light
>from the inside of the camera.
I agree with George.
Its helpful to use a lens shade which acts as a field stop and
limits the illumination of the inside of the camera. Meaning a shade
with a smaller opening or angle than would normally be used on the
lens.
The difference in quality of the image depends on the lenses in
question. The lenses you ask about are all excellent so I doubt if
there is any difference in the center image. In the case of some other
lenses the difference could go either way depending on how good the
lens is. For instance, the image quality of a 12" Apo Artar on 4x5 is
better than a 12" Dagor.
Correcting a lens of a given focal length for a large image circle
may require making some compromises which are not required for a
smaller format but there are a lot of qualifiers which prevent a
general answer to your question.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Is there a disadvantage in huge image circle,
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002
"Greg" gregpam@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>Thanks for the input folks. By habit I do use a bellows lens shade although
>not one that uses blinds to close down to the required aperture but rather a
>sort of gobo sun visor thing attached to the outer end of the Bellows.
>Sorry I didn't mention it, just took it for granted.
>
>Given the use of an adjustable lens compendium entry hole ( vis. sinar )
>would this essentially deal with the internal reflections or is there more
>to the story? I do seek to try and cover all bases when shooting but was
>trying to cut corners on this occasion by endeavouring to get double duty
>out of a lens, considering the cost of these models.
>--
>-
>Regards
>Greg Pratt -- gregpam@ozemail.com.au-
An adjustable lens shade should take care of any problem from
internal reflection in the camera. As long as the lens has good image
sharpness there really aren't any other problems. Some current
"normal" type lenses have very large image circles to allow for camera
movements. Their coverage would have classified them as "wide field"
lenses some years ago. In any case, I think there really is no
problem.
I frequently use a 12" Dagor or a 12" Apo-Artar for 4x5. The Dagor
works well for portraits because its slightly soft at larger
apertures.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Web site for Nikkor large format optics?
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002
Sandy King wrote:
>
> Is there a website for Nikkor large format lenses?
Sandy,
It's not "official", but Carey Bird has a series of Nikkor LF lens pages
starting at:
http://homepages.tig.com.au/~cbird/nikkor/niklf.html
It includes specs for all current Nikkor LF lenses as well as photos
scanned from a Nikkor LF brochure.
BTW, less than a year ago, Nikkor published a very nice brochure on
their LF lenses. It's in Japanese, but even if you aren't fluent, it's
easy enough to figure out the specs from the charts and diagrams
provided. I got one of these brochures from Badger Graphic. You might
give them a call and see if they have any more on hand.
Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann - Large Format Images of Nature
http://www.thalmann.com/
Kerry's Large Format Homepage
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/
Subject: Re: Gnass website?
From: Georges Pelpel gpelpel@attbi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002
Try: http://www.gnassgear.com/ggrweb1/
> From: "John Bast" jbast@bestweb.net
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002
> Subject: Gnass website?
>
> I've seen references to "Gnass" as a manufacturer of large format
> accessories but I can't find out anything about them. Does anyone have a
> URL or email address?
>
> TIA
>
> -John
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Aero-Ektar 309/2.5 or Metrogon experimental camera conversion,
Metrogon questions, aerial filters?
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002
multi-volti@softhouse.com (Murray) wrote:
>Hello:
>
>I don't like to do things conventionally. I know there would be a
>variety of
>'issues' making these lenses work in a 'camera', for b/w, but I would
>still like to hear from anyone who has successfully used such lenses
>for photography.
>
>And some general questions on the Metrogon and aerial filters.
>
>What was the original application (what kind of aerial work...mapping
>or surveillance) for the 150 mm Metrogon? If I were to use one on 4 x
>5 film, would it have a relatively 'normal' perspective, or would it
>be wide angle? The fisheye appearance is deceiving...
>
>Lastly, I have two Metrogon filters...a Yellow II, 1679 and a Red III,
>3'.
>Both have the different center spot density in the middle to weight
>the exposure more for the outer edges. How does one alter exposure
>when using these filters? For terrestrial use in enhancing contrast,
>what effect does each of these two colors have on earthly subjects?
>
>When people use these types of lenses for astrographs, do they need
>significant enlargement to see the celestial objects?
>
>
>Thanks
>
>Murray
The Aero Ektar was intended for use in surveillance, particularly
night surveillance using flash bombs. The main requirement was to have
good resolution at large openings. They are very well corrected lenses
but have some compromise to the spherical to help other aberrations.
They are seven element Biotar types using very high index glasses.
The Metrogon is similar to the Zeiss Topogon, a wide angle lens
intended for areial mapping. They have quite low geometrical
distortion and good resolution. The fall-off of illumination is
somewhat greater than the theoretical cos^4 Theta. The filters are
combination center filtes with haze cutting colors, amber or red. The
use of yellow or red filters for aerial photogrphy is nearly universal
except for low altitude oblique work and they are often used there as
well.
Aero Ektars have fairly narrow coverage. The original formats were
about 4x4 inches for the 7" lens, and 9x9 inches for the 12" version.
Metrogon and Topogon lenses have coverage of greater than 90deg.
Both Metrogon and Topogon lenses are rectilinear, not fish-eye
types.
So called "wide angle distortion" comes from viewing images at too
great a distance rather than from an actual distortion created by the
lens. If such a picture is viewed at a distance equal to the focal
length of the lens times the magnification of the print the
"distortion" will disappear.
The effects of the color filters will be about the same as a #15 and
a #25 although they are not identical.
Although its often stated that the chromatic correction of aerial
lenses is compromised toward the red the curves in Smith's _Modern
Lens Design_ don't indicate this. At least Aero Ektar and Metrogon
lenses should perform well without color filters.
I can't answer the questions about astrophotgraphy but suspect the
answer is that magnification will be necessary. Probably a search of
astrophotography sites will bring better information.
Please note that Aero Ektars are somewhat radioactive due to the
rather large content of Thorium oxide in some of the elements. They
are not dangerous but should be stored away from sensitive materials.
This is NOT a myth. Much so-called Lanthanum glass also contained a
substantial amount of Thorium oxide, included to obtain the desired
optical properties, not as an impurity.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: wasf@cyberspace.org (william a franko)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: 6" Metrogon mods
Date: 19 Mar 2002
I cut threads on the Metrogon cells to fit a Betax #4 shutter. The
cells must be installed with the front cell in the rear of the
shutter. The lenses spaceing comes to within a few thousands =/- of
the original spec.checked from front to rear of the glass surfaces.aka
Surplus shed's spec sheet. The setup was mounted in a universal lens
holder at the rear flange of the rear cell. This left the shutter
exposed but in a reversed position. The shutter speeds and f stops were
marked on the shutter side and were readable from any position.
I mounted the unit on a 11x14 Deardorff and the sides of the bellows
cut off the horizontal view.
I then mounted the shutter direct to a lens board by the front lens flange,now
the shutter was inside the camera.I planned on drilling a hole for a
cable release and using the smallest f/stop and time.It worked with
about a 11 to 12" circle.
I then got a flash from above and cut off the rear lens flange down to the
cell nut that holds the glass in. Holding the shutter in my hands at
eye level with the iris as small as possible I sighted from the front
left side of the flange through the iris to the right side of the rear
flange.
I then put the shutter on a test bench an could see the target 8" off center
aka 16" circle.When I mount this on the camera I can only see about a
13" circle.ANY IDEAS...........
bill...
-mail
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: what to pay for barrel lens?
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002
brbanks@qwest.net (bear) wrote:
>What price should I pay for the following lens in good condition ?
>a) C. P. Goerz Berlin Dagor series III f7.7 420mm
>also an old Metrogon type I 3" f6.3 ( not barrel.)
This is an impossible question to answer. Prices of used things are
essentially what somone is willing to pay for them.
You may get some help by looking for similar items in old Shutterbug
magazines or in old eBay auctions (I don't know exactly how to do
this).
The Berlin Dagor is pretty old if it doesn't say Zeiss-Goerz on it,
made between 1901, when the name Dagor was adopted, and 1926, when
Goerz was merged into the Zeiss group. Zeiss continued to make Dagors
until at least 1940 but with the Zeiss-Goerz name on them.
Dagors longer than 12" are f/7.7.
These are good, usable lenses if in good condition, the condition is
probably the most important factor. Its not really a collectible so
much as a user. 14" Dagors are fairly rare so that should increase it
value somewhat.
Metrogons hare harder to guess at. A lot of them became available
war surplus and they are not particularly rare. If its mounted in a
conventional shutter the value of the lens depends on how well the
remounting job was done. The interelement spacing between the cells is
very small and very critical so a poor remounting job can ruin the
lens performance. Metrogons were made by Bausch & Lomb as their
standard aerial mapping lens for some time. Thousands were made for
the U.S. military during WW-2 and they continued to be used for some
time after the war until replaced by more modern designs.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From Camera Makers Mailing List:
From: "Gene Johnson" genej2@cox.net
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] KS-87 Lenses
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002
Dr. Kopp,
My 3" and 6" lenses are by Pacific Optical. My 12" is from Perkin-Elmer.
All were intended for the KS-87B camera and are now removed from their
cones. The 12" housing is a pretty simple and straightforward hourglass
shape with minimal extra material. The 3" lens is pretty much the same but
with a bit of a flange around the front element. The 6" is by far the most
compact, but has a lot of extra material around it that is not removable
without some kind of machining. It does have an iris though. I will give the
"as is" measurements along with a smaller dimension that might be achievable
with some simple machining.
Long F. Dia R. Dia.
6" 3.75" 6"/4.5" 3.55"
3" 7.75" 6"/5.125" 4.25"
12" 7.6" 4.75" 4.2
Hope this helps.
Gene Johnson
...
> Where would I find the specs for the optics, especially the diameters of
> the lenses used for the 3", 6", 12" and 18" lens cone assys?
>
> Most obliged!
>
> Carlo
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002
From: William Nettles nettles@wgn.net
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: [Cameramakers] Cheapo lens boards
I've found that 1/8" hardened masonite makes the best and cheapest lens
boards. This is for my Zone VI. My boards are 4" x 4". You can cut them out
on a table saw or even with multiple passes with a mat knife.
For the holes I use an adjustable hole saw in my drill press. These will
also work in a small drill. (the one I use has three cutters--the single
cutter one I've never been able to make work).
For my Sinar I had a friend with a machine shop cut out a 4x4 square with a
lip on one of the ~6 x ~6" Sinar boards and screw on a couple of clips. This
way all my lenses fit on all my cameras (including the Horseman which takes
Sinar boards) in the same boards. The Masonite is much better than the cute
boards that match the camera wood. I've found that these can splinter under
conditions that won't even ding masonite.
Will
---William Nettles
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001
From: David Morris davidrobertmorris@lineone.net
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Slightly OT: Quality of Zeiss lens design versus new CAD designs
>......... Also, some older lenses perform up to very high standards. The Kodak
Ektar series are hard to match even with the most modern glass........
This subject is quite interesting, as many folk using old cameras/lenses
swear by their sharpness vis-a-vis modern lenses, yet it one can usually
spot a picture taken on an old lens. Are older lenses, as a rule, really
as sharp as modern lenses (in the MTF sense)? I appreciate that lenses
were never unsharp, even in Victorian times pictures were sharp, but I have
always assumed that modern lenses were sharper - ie. more micro contrast
especially in the 20-30 lpm resolution area.
It seems to me that standard lenses were sorted out a long time ago. The
1960s/70s saw great strides in wide angle and telephoto lenses for the SLR
market and the 1980s/90s in zoom lenses. Thus, old standard lenses perform
a lot better than old wideangles, zooms etc.
David Morris
David Morris (davidrobertmorris@lineone.net)
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001
From: Gene Johnson genej2@home.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Slightly OT: Quality of Zeiss lens design versusnew CAD designs
I Agree,
I also think that much of the time the film we use starts to run out of
gas about the same time the lens does. For most color film I've used, I
would guess that the lens is probably better than the film. I would
love to hear from someone who knows if that's right or not. I'm thinking
of the 3.5 Tessar in my Automat, and I can't ever remember looking at
some prints, good or bad, and wishing the lens was sharper. My guess is
that you're right - better quality normal lenses have been pretty well
sorted out for some time. I also have to believe that good zooms could
not have happened without some pretty powerful computers. I can't even
imagine what those computations would look like.
Gene Johnson
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: metrogon type I 3" used for what?
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002
brbanks@qwest.net (bear) wrote:
>What was this lens used for. metrogon type I 3" f6.3
>Could it be used in lf cameras?
The Metrogon was a standard lens for aerial photography. It was used
mainly on aerial mapping cameras. It is a wide-angle lens with low
geometrical distortion and good sharpness.
I don't know specifically which camera the 3" lens was used on but
probably one using 5" width film. The lens should work well for 4x5.
Metrogons were usually used with combination filters which both
tapered density to compensate for the light fall off and color for
haze cutting. Red and Yellow filters were available.
Metrogons, Zeiss Topogons, and similar lenses were replaced by more
modern types some time ago but both work well as LF wide angle lenses.
The coverage is about 90 degrees.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Alan Cox" alancox@directvinternet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Military camera (KA-45)
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002
You might try richard_ruck@roi.bourns.com
Otherwise, the phone number is on the web page.
Alan Cox
Recon/Optical
"John Stafford" john@stafford.net wrote ...
> "Rob" robagram@hotmail.com wrote
> > The guy in this article might be able to help if you can hunt him down...
> >
> > http://www.roi.bourns.com/thirteen%20days.htm
>
> :) Just a note regarding the images on the page:
> http://www.roi.bourns.com/caipage.htm -- imagine those as 9" square
> negatives ... in _stereo_, and viewed using the proper stereo optics.
> The trained human brain has an amazing ability to interpolate. A
> single negative of, say, a building with an apparent artifact in a
> window, under the stero view can show the artifact might be a human
> figure... all from (a still classified?) distance.
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 600mm f9 Zeiss Jena Apo-Tessar?
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002
David Hosten dhosten@sympatico.ca wrote:
>Anyone know anything about this lens? Actually reads '60cm' on the front.
>I have it in barrel mounted on a Korona 11x14. Seems like a great lens,
>but can't find any info on the web and I don't have a copy of
>Kingslake's book on history of lenses.
>Thanks
>David
The Apo Tessar was Zeiss standard process lens for decades. They
were also used on cameras for commercial color work.
My late 1920's Zeiss catalogues list a 64mm, f/10 Apo-Tessar. This
may be a much later lens. I am guessing later because its faster.
Apo-Tessars have narrower coverage than the standard Tessar form but
this one should cover 11x14 with lots to spare for movements.
Whle process lenses are generally optimised for 1:1 magnification
the correction at infinty is still good, partly because the lens is so
slow. I am not sure how the Apo-Tessar compares to the more common
Apochromatic Artar in this way because it is of a different design,
however, I suspect they perform quite well at infinity.
If the lens is pre-ww-2 it can be approximately dated from the
serial number.
The difference between this and a standard Tessar is the choice of
glass types to give the apochromatic color correction. The slow speed
allows very good correction of other aberrations.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: bg174@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Gudzinowicz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Topcor (was Re: Congo 90mm f5.6 lens)
Date: 2 Apr 2002
obakesan cjundieseastwd@powerup.com.au obakesan wrote:
> its made a little clearer now, I asked the clerk for a look, and found that
> the lens was incorrectly wearing the Congo tag, and its infact a very new
> looking Topcor 90mm f5.6
>
> I think Kerrys' lens is a f6.9 or something like that
>
> anyone know anything about the Topcor? Lens barrel and shutter (#0) look
> very modern, and it seems multi coated.
Topcon has made lenses sold by Horseman, so the lens very well might be
the equivalent of the Horsemen Super 90 f/5.6 which covers 80 deg. If that
is the case, the circle would be 151 mm or just enough for 4x5 without
movements. The Topcon/Horseman 90 was designed as a "normal" lens for
rollfilm, not as a wide angle for 4x5. (The 65 and 75 mm Horseman Super ER
lenses are wide angle, and have a larger circle.) If possible, try the
lens on a camera to check coverage since it is unlikely that it is similar
to the WA lenses from Nikon, Schneider, etc.
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Opinions on 6 1/2 Dagor!! & 19 inch Artar??????
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002
"J Burke" burkeboyz@peoplepc.com wrote:
>Just purchased a 8x10 Field (Deardorff) that includes a 6 1/2 Dagor. Is this
>a decent older lens? Was told it is actually a 5x7 lens but covers 8x10
>w/limited movements. 19 in Artar barrel also part of deal.
>Any info or opinions on this lens as well appreciated!!
>
>--
>J. Burke
Gee whiz, you must be curious to have posted three times:-)
The Dagor is a very famous lens. It is essentially a wide angle lens
when stopped down. At f/45 a 6.5" Dagor will just cover 8x10. Its a
wide-angle lens for 5x7. The "normal" focal length for 5x7 is about
210mm.
Dagors are somewhat soft when used wide open becoming very sharp at
around f/22. There is some focus shift due to zonal spherical
aberration, so, if you are going to use smaller stops the lens should
be focused at around f/16.
the rear element can be used alone with about 1.8 times the focal
length of the combined lens, but it is not corrected for coma so must
be used at around f/45 for decent sharpness at the corners. The speed
of a single cell is about f/12.5
The Apochromatic Artar is an extremely sharp lens but has very
limited coverage. These lenses were designed for making three-color
photomechanical printing plates. They are optimised for 1:1
magnification but work well at infinity focus when stopped down to
about f/22. A 19" Artar will cover 8x10 with just a little margin for
movements. Generally, for pictorial use, an Artar has a circle of
coverage about equal in diameter to the focal length when stopped down
a little. Unlike the Dagor the coverage of an Artar does not get much
larger as its stopped down.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Opinions on 6 1/2 Dagor!! & 19 inch Artar??????
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002
....
>Hi,
>
>What kind of shutter is the 6 1/2 Dagor mounted in? I'm also
>interested in eventually getting one of these beauties and was
>wondering whether it was a barrel lens or if it came mounted in a
>shutter. Thanks.
>
>Regards,
>Bogdan
Dagors came in both barrels and shutters. Since they were made for
decades, and in both the U.S. and Germany, they are found in a variety
of shutters. The shutter type will also depend on the size of the
lens.
Most larger U.S. built Dagors are in Ilex shutters, some in
Wollensak shutters. German built Dagors are mostly in Compur or
Compound shutters depending on size.
Remember, these things were built from 1892 (under the name Double
Anastigmat, Dagor after 1904) until perhaps 1975. I am not sure when
the last ones were built by Kern in Switzerland for Schneider. The
earliest ones predate modern shutters.
Compound shutters have a similar long lifetime. I think the design
originated about 1905 and was made until the 1980s.
Sometimes the shutter is helpful in dating a lens but that is
hazardous since many older lenses were remounted into new shutters at
some point in their lives.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "John Yeo" jonnieo@thegrid.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Time to shutup and shoot
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002
Jim, on all my cameras, I have used clipboards to make the lensboards.
Sometimes, you have to shim them up with a bit of tape.. It's worth a try.
I would love to see pictures of the camera, if you could send some to me.
John
From: jhicks31@bellsouth.net (John Hicks)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Time to shutup and shoot
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002
Cut a lensboard to the appropriate size and shape, then cut a
square out of the middle. Cut another square board of the appropriate
size that'll fit down inside the bellows. Construct a box using wood
strips or whatever, put the small board on one end of the box and
attach the other end to the big lensboard. You now have a recessed
lensboard of whatever depth you want.
---
John Hicks
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Question about Paragon lenses
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002
Bogdan Karasek bkarasek@videotron.ca wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I know that there are Paragon lenses that came in the 8.5 and 10
>inch focal length. Is there also a longer Paragon lense in the
>16 to 20 inch focal length.
>
>Thanks in advance for any infomation.
>
>Regards,
>Bogdan
FWIW, Paragon was a general trade mark used by Ilex for many of its
lenses. They certainly made Tessar type lenses for large format use to
at least 12" and they made (I think) a 20" Tessar for Calumet, which
they also sold under the paragon name.
Ilex also made process lenses of various types under the Paragon
name.
The Paragon Tessars are very good, but not outstanding lenses.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Erik Ryberg ryberg@seanet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Question about Paragon lenses
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002
I own a 15 inch lens that says ILEX Paragon on it. It is an f9 lens that
is single coated and is small and very sharp. I love it. My friend got
it out of a copy machine in the dumpster.
Erik Ryberg
From: GDW whalen1@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Newest update (1 name added)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002
Gary Whalen at http://www.garydwhalen.com
> Eric P. Volpe at http://www.limpoc.com/gallery
> Roy Harrington at http://www.harrington.com/
> Kerry Thalmann at http://www.thalmann.com
> Lloyd Erlick at http://www.heylloyd.com/
> Lee Carmichael at
> http://www.f32.net/Services/Photographers/LeeCarmichael.html
> Dale Strouse at http://www.dalestrousephoto.com/
>
> Chuck Pezeshki at http://users.moscow.com/pezeshki
> Paul Butzi at http://www.butzi.net
> Phil Bard -- http://www.philbard.com/home.html
> Rob Gray -- http://www.robgray.com/
> Lynn Radeka -- http://www.radekaphotography.com/index.htm
> Craig Pindell -- http://www.wyomingphotographers.com
> David Meiland at http://www.davidmeiland.com/
> Danny Burk at http://www.dannyburk.com
>
> Tom Mickllin at http://www.tmicklin.com
> Kerick Kouklis at http://www.kerik.com
> Clyde Butcher at http://clydebutcher.com/
> Butch Welch at http://www.mindspring.com/~butchwelch/home.html
> Carl Weese at http://home.earthlink.net/~cweese/index.html
> Keith Schreiber at http://ww.jkschreiber.com/
> Mark Citret at http://www.mcitret.com/
> Ralph Barker at http://www.rbarkerphoto.com
> Chris Cline at http://people.westminstercollege.edu/faculty/ccline/
>
> Eric Boutilier-Brown at http://www.evolvingbeauty.com
> Bruce Wilson http://chemweb.dynu.com/photo
> Carey Bird http://homepages.tig.com.au/~cbird
> Roger Clark http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark
> J. M. Ferreria at http://www.jmf-photo.ch
> Mike McDonald at http://www.mikemac.com/mikemac/photos/
>
> John Douglas - http://www.darkroom-pro.com
> Joe Neil at http://www.multiboard.com/~joneil
> Robert D Feinman at http://robertdfeinman.com
> Bruce MacNeil at http://www.brucemacneil.com
Christopher Perez at http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/
Scott Walton http://www.scottwaltonphotographs.com
From camera makers mailing list:
From: "Gene Johnson" genej2@home.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Test of Aero Ektar 178 mm
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002
Hi All,
Great info on the Aero Ektar. I've been looking for a deal on one of those
for a while myself. Gonna be harder now. I am just putting the finishing
touches on a 4x5 ( Man I'm slow) that uses Aero lenses. There are quire a
few Aero lenses available right now. The Military is going digital in a big
way, and most of the tactical recon stuff is going on the surplus market.
A company called C& H Sales in Pasadena has a lot of surplus Aero lenses as
well as Surplus shack. Be warned though. These lenses are big! The three
inch lens for my camera is absolutely amazing to look at but weighs 6
pounds! Still I have about $200 invested in lenses that cost the government
about $100,000. Good ones are around by Kodak, Leitz Canada (Elcan), Bell
and Howell, Pacific Optical, Fairchild, Perkin Elmer, Aerojet/Delft, and
others.I will have pictures soon. Good luck Robert!
Gene
---- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Mueller" r.mueller@fz-juelich.de
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002
Subject: [Cameramakers] Test of Aero Ektar 178 mm
> There is somebody offering an Aero Ektar at ebay
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item;=1334394605
>
> I believe anybody who can read the German text might enjoy the
> information. Indeed, you can probably guess enough to make sense out of
> the numerical values even without reading German. I was amazed how good
> this lens is and the report might encourage some of you to grab the first
> one offered to you. After remounting in a shutter (or with a Packard),
> this lens ought to satisfy the needs of almost all doing 4x5 (9cmx12cm) on
> a shoestring. And how many of us can even find alternatives offering F2.5
> for 4x5 format?
>
> What I also hope is that some reader of this group might have a source of
> the entire report from Hubble. The test results in all their detail would
> be nice to have and according to the ebay seller, the Hubble report
> compared various aerial lenses. You would be doing all of us a service if
> you could supply a copy of the report to anyone wanting it. I, for one
> would gladly pay a bit for a photocopy, postage and other costs of the
> person who can get hands on this document and distribute it.
>
> The sad news is that Surplus Shed does not currently have any to sell to
> you, but they will no doubt again appear. I am thankful to have mine,
> already, but now I am driven to remount it!
>
> Bob
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 6 1/2 Dagor info REQ/19 in Artar info REQ!!!!!!!!!
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002
drdagor@hotmail.com (Dr. Dagor) wrote:
>> Recently purchased but not yet received an 8x10 Deardorff with a 61/2 Dagor
>> (Actually a 5x7 lens) and a 19 in Artar barrel lens. Any info on these
>> lenses?????good, bad ,fair
>
>In a word... Great.
>
>You can tell by my email pseudonym that I'm biased. But with good
>reason. The Dagor was the first or second of the great symmetrical
>lenses--the Tessar being the other one introduced at about the same
>time. The Artar came along soon after and was also one of the great
>families of lenses. The Dagor was in production continuously from
>about 1890 until the 1980's. Amazing! Economics, world politics,
>marketing, and computers finally did it in. But the coated lenses
>from the 60's on are still fine lenses. The 165 WA Dagor is a staple
>in the lens box of many photographers today. The Artar is another
>honey, but a different breed of cat.
>
>The 165 Dagor is a Wide Angle unit. Like all Dagors it is a
>symmetrical lens (front and back groups the same) with 6 elements
>cemented into 2 groups. Because it is symmetrical you get good lens
>performance with movement. Because there are only 4 air to air
>surfaces, you get little flare and remarkably good contrast for an
>"antique". On the bench this lens will perform as well as modern
>lenses at f22 and f32, although it gets soft at full aperture.
>
>You probably have one produced by American Optical under license
>sometime between about 1958 and 1968. The serial number will probably
>be somewhere in the range from 770000 to about 815000. This is a
>modern, coated lens. No fooling. While all these are good lenses,
>there was some improvement in coatings and manufacturing for lenses
>near the late end of this range. If your lens has a serial number
>above 779000 or so (depending on size), then the front filter ring is
>not blackened, but left as polished brass. These are Gold Ring
>Dagors. While optically little different from earlier units, these
>are considered more collectable, and demand a higher price.
>
>165 WA Dagors have recently sold on Ebay for over $400, (late models
>in great condition) and they are worth every penny. I've seen
>pristine ones in stores for over $650. Also worth it.
>
>Your Artar is also a terrific lens, but very different from the Dagor.
> The 19" lens does not have a big image circle for its focal length.
>But it is incredibly sharp, doesn't weigh much (you'll come to
>appreciate this), and is Apo corrected (assuming it is a later one).
>This makes it terrific for color work. Originally designed for
>enlarger and graphics work, the Artar proved so versatile that they
>were sold in shutters for LF cameras like your Deardorff.
>The only problem with the Artar is that it has four elements in two
>air-spaced groups. So there are 8 glass-air surfaces. As a result,
>all but the most modern Artars have lower contrast than comparable
>Dagors or most other lenses of the same focal length. To help deal
>with this, use a compendium bellows or other lens hood. It isn't
>uncommon to see folks use lens hoods that are a foot long on these
>lenses. One guy I know recommends that the hood be as long as the
>focal length of the lens! Yipes. But for your effort you will be
>rewarded with incredibly crisp photographs. Artars vary in price more
>than Dagors. You can get a good, older 19" Artar in a barrel for $50.
> But a late, 19", Red-Dot Apo-Artar in a really good shutter can
>easily go for $750.
>
>yeah... I'd say they are good lenses.
Actually, the Tessar is completely unsymmetrical. Its predecessor,
the Protar along with the Dagor was one of the first lenses to make
use of the new glass types developed by Schott with the encouragement
of Ernst Abbe of Zeiss. These glass types made possible the correction
of astigmatism simultaneously with chromatic aberration, something
which was supposed to be impossible with the older glass types. In
fact, it wasn't, but that wasn't discovered until later.
The Artar is derived from an earlier design by Emil von Hoegh, the
inventor of the Dagor. I found that he could replace the center
element on each side of the Dagor with an "air" lens and still get a
high degree of correction. This type of lens was called originally the
Goerz Double Anastigmat, Type-B (the Dagor being Type-A). Its name was
changed in 1904 to Celor. This is the basis for a great meny lenses
including the famous 203mm, f/7.7 Kodak Anastigmat and later Ektar.
The Ektar and the Goerz Dogmar are made slightly unsymmetrcal to
improve correction for infinity focus.
The Apochromatic Artar was developed by Zschokke who also designed
the Dogmar.
Although Paul Rudolph of Zeiss, the designer of the Protar and
Tessar, often gets credit for the Plasmat type lens von Hoegh actually
proposed it as a variation of the Dagor. Essentially, its a Dagor with
one element air spaced. This is the prototype of lenes like the
Schneider Symmar and Rodenstock Sironar, and many other modern large
format camera lenes, enlarging lenses, copy lenses, etc. It can be
made nearly free of astigmatism and has very much less zonal spherical
aberration than a Dagor at the price of rather larger size and greater
weight.
The story is that von Hoegh approached Zeiss with his designs before
he went to Goerz but was carrying a christmas goose under his arm for
dinner. Zeiss rejected the design. In fact, while this is a cute
story, I strongly suspect the reason Zeiss wasn't intersted is that
Paul Rudolph was working on a similar design at the time. In fact, von
Hoegh just barely beat Rudolph in getting the patent.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 6 1/2 Dagor info REQ/19 in Artar info REQ!!!!!!!!!
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002
hogarth hogarth@directvinternet.com wrote:
>Richard Knoppow wrote:
>
>> drdagor@hotmail.com (Dr. Dagor) wrote:
>>
>> >> Recently purchased but not yet received an 8x10 Deardorff with a 61/2 Dagor
>> >> (Actually a 5x7 lens) and a 19 in Artar barrel lens. Any info on these
>> >> lenses?????good, bad ,fair
>> >
>> >In a word... Great.
>> >
Lots of snipping....
>> The Artar is derived from an earlier design by Emil von Hoegh, the
>> inventor of the Dagor. I found that he could replace the center
>> element on each side of the Dagor with an "air" lens and still get a
>> high degree of correction. This type of lens was called originally the
>> Goerz Double Anastigmat, Type-B (the Dagor being Type-A). Its name was
>> changed in 1904 to Celor.
>
>But the Artar itself was designed in 1903 by W. Zschokke as a process lens based
>on the dialyte design. What's the difference between a Celor and an Artar?
>
More snipping...
Mostly the glass types, the essential design is similar.
The Apochromatic Artar makes use of a combination of glass types
which allows the correction of longitudinal chromatic aberration for
three colors simutaneously. Most lenses are corrected for two colors.
the Apo Artar, and similar lenses, were intended for the making of
three-color color separation plates for printing. The images on the
three plates must all be in focus and must be exactly the same size if
the images are to be in register.
The size part is taken care of by the symmetry of the lens.
Symmetrical lenses are free of lateral chromatic aberration, also
called chromatic difference of magnification. A lens can be designed
so that its free of longitudinal chromatic, that is, all colors come
to focus at the same plane, but images in different colors may be of
different sizes. This is not tolerable if color fringing is to be
elimiinated, or for three-color process work.
One reason the Apo Artar and similar apo lenses are so slow is that
the special glass types were expensive, plus, there was no need for
high speed anyway in the application.
Apo Artars were also used widely for color enlarging and on studio
cameras for color work.
Not all process lenses are apochromatic. For instance, Goerz made an
achromatic (corrected for two colors) process lens called the Gotar.
These are also symmetrical four-element air-spaced lenses, but are
made with more conventional glass. They are very sharp but don't have
ghe nearly perfect color correction of the Artar. They were
considerably cheaper.
By shifting some power from one cell to the other the lens
correction can be optimised for infinity focus rather than the 1:1
which is automatic with a true symmetrical lens. The Kodak 203mm Ektar
and the Goerz Dogmar make use of this technique. Both were designed
for general pictorial use rather than process use.
The limitation of all these lenses is coverage. Its narrow compared
to even a Tessar, probably no more than about 53 degrees. Process
lenses generally have specified coverage of around 45 to 50 degrees,
but the actual image circle is larger. The factory specs are for the
extremely high performance required for the intended application.
Plasmat type lenses have replaced the Dialyte type for 1:1
applicatons because they have wider angles of coverage and can be very
highly corrected.
Almost any basic design with at least three elements can be made
apochromatic. In fact, a few apochromatic triplets have been made.
However, the color correction alone does not indicate overall high
performance, or even good color correction at points away from the
three wavelengths corrected for in the design. Its possible to make an
apochromat with large deviation in focus over the spectrum and an
achromat with very little deviation.
Fortunately for users of older lenses both of the popular apo
process lenses, the Apo-Artar and Apo-Tessar, are very well designed
lenses with excellent overall performance, even at infinity focus.
The Goerz Dogmar is an achromat but with excellent color correction.
The Dogmar was frequently used on three-color one shot cameras because
it was fast enough (f/4.5) but they tended to be flary before lens
coatings came along, and had narrow coverage. This last was not a
problem on a one-shot color camera since the lens had to have a long
enough focal length to clear the mirrors anyway.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Goerz process lenses
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002
wasf@cyberspace.org (william a franko) wrote:
>Was the Goerz Blue Dot Trigor a plasmat or a Dagor like the wide field
>Kenro made by Goerz in the last few years of their exsistence?
>bill.
Its a Dagor. Evidently a variation of the Wide Angle Dagor with
coverage larger than a Dialyte type process lens but not as wide as a
Dagor. The image circle is reduced probably to reduce some of the
zonal spherical aberration characteristic of the Dagor and similar
cemented meniscus lenses.
The Blue-Dot, also sold as the Trigor, is not an apochromatic lens.
Its a good achromat. Symmetrical lenses, like the Dagor have
inherently no lateral chromatic aberration when the whole optica
system is symmetrical (i.e., at 1:1) and good cancellation even up to
infinity focus.
The Trigor was made for wide angle use in making lithographic
masters.
As for pictorial lenses, the Plasmat type offers better correction
and easier construction due to having two less cemented surfaces. Once
effective anti-reflective lens coatings became economically available,
the all-cemented designs, like the Dagor disappeared since air-spaced
designs, like the Plasmat offered a better solution to performance.
Most modern LF lenses, copy machine lenses, enlarging lenses, are of
the Plasmat type.
Goerz evidently did not make Blue-Dot or Trigor lenses for long or in
large quantity. They appear to have been made in only a limited number
of focal lengths.
Goerz made some Plasmat type lenses although I can't remember the
trade-names they used.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: wings@dakotacom.net (Gene A. Townsend)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 6" Metrogon mods
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002
wasf@cyberspace.org (william a franko) wrote:
>I cut threads on the Metrogon cells to fit a Betax #4 shutter. The
>cells must be installed with the front cell in the rear of the
>shutter. The lenses spaceing comes to within a few thousands =/- of
>the original spec.checked from front to rear of the glass surfaces.aka
>Surplus shed's spec sheet. The setup was mounted in a universal lens
>holder at the rear flange of the rear cell. This left the shutter
>exposed but in a reversed position. The shutter speeds and f stops
>were
>marked on the shutter side and were readable from any position.
>I mounted the unit on a 11x14 Deardorff and the sides of the bellows
>cut off the
>horizontal view.
>I then mounted the shutter direct to a lens board by the front lens
>flange,now
>the shutter was inside the camera.I planned on drilling a hole for a
>cable release and using the smallest f/stop and time.It worked with
>about a 11to12"
>circle.
>I then got a flash from above and cut off the rear lens flange down to
>the
>cell nut that holds the glass in. Holding the shutter in my hands at
>eye level with the iris as small as possible I sighted from the front
>left side of the flange through the iris to the right side of the rear
>flange.
>I then put the shutter on a test bench an could see the target 8" off
>center
>aka 16" circle.When I mount this on the camera I can only see about a
>13" circle.ANY IDEAS...........
I don't exactly understand the trouble you are describing. The circle
of illumination and the circle of good definition for the metrogon are
very different, as with many wide angle lenses. I played with a 6
inch metrogon lens for many years for use as a wide field
astrophotography camera, and can assure you, that looking at long
exposures of stars in the sky, which give a very good indication of
lens image quality, that the circle of good definition for this lens
is marginal with 8 by 10 film stopped down to f:22, meaning the image
circle is about 12 inches, so your mounting is not restricting this
field of view at all, so it should be just fine the way you describe
it. The light fall-off for this lens is very bad even across a 12
inch image circle, and is probably horrible at 16 in. I think it may
be a waste of time trying to get this wide angle coverage from a lens
that was designed for a much narrower field of view, but if your
making contact prints, this may be worthwhile to pursue.
So when you say on the camera, you're seeing only a 13 in. circle,
that could be the severe off-axis light falloff that this lens has,
while looking through the lens afocally, this is less of an effect. I
doubt there would be enough light you let you see much of an image at
this angle with this lens stopped down. You would probably need to
custom make an variable gradation filter on the inside of a spherical
glass dish to be able to do this, and the resulting sensitivity loss
would require very long exposure times to compensate.
This is similar to my recent experience with a 90 mm Graphlex Optar
lens I just mounted on a 4 by 5. This lens appears to illuminate an
area at least 9 inches in diameter, yet I know that the lens has only
marginal resolution across a 6 inch circle stopped down to f:32. Just
because you see the light there, doesn't mean it's particularly
useful.
Regards,
Gene A. Townsend
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Yet another tele question
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002
bpnp@sover.net wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>First thanks to all who have responded to my previous posts, and to all who
>have had to put up with my opinions on DI. Still I have another query. I
>have recently played with working with one element of my Rodenstock Sironar
>N as a "convertible" optic,its OK, not a good fit for field work. My tele
>for the 5x7 is on old 12 inch Gorez "Doubel Anastigmatic Series 3" No 6."
>Its a beast weight wise and its a very flat lens contrast wise(my
>agitation?). If I were to cough up the $$$$, which would be a better choice,
>An Artar or a Dagor? I am primarily a B&W; landscape photog.By the way anyone
>know anything about my Gorez "Double anastigmat" ?
>Thanks again
>N
Your Goerz Double Anastigmat Series III is a Dagor. If it does not
say Dagor on the front ring it dates from before 1901 when Goerz
changed the names of all its lenses and introduced the name Dagor for
this lens. I believe the U.S. division of Goerz dates from 1899, so
even if made by Goerz in New York rather than Berlin its still a
Dagor.
If its contrast is poor I suspect the cement is in poor condition.
While the most usual kind of cement problem is oxidation and
crystalization at the edges its possible for the cement to become hazy
overall. Shining a flashlight through the lens will tell what the
problem is. Fundamentally, Dagors are high contrast because they have
only four glass-air surfaces and hense low flare. Both of my Dagors
have removable back caps on the cells, making it more practical (and
cheaper) to get the glass out for recementing. This seems to have been
Goerz's standard mounting method. If your lens is like this it may be
economical to have it recemented and the shutter serviced at the same
time. See Steve Grimes URL below.
If the contrast is low because the glass is scratched up keep it as
a collector's item or for the shutter. Scratched glass is not
repairable although mild scratching of coated lenses can often be
repaired by re-coating.
I think you will find few lenses of this focal length which are not
heavier then the Dagor, certainly any modern lens of the Plasmat type
will be considerably heavier.
5x7 is a tough size for a true telephoto lens (there is a difference
between long-focus and telephoto). The frequently found Wollensak
Tele-Raptar/Optar 15" lens will cover 5x7 with decent image quality at
the corners. Most of these lenses are in barrels but the cells will
screw directly into a Wollensak No.4 Alphax shutter.
Your old Dagor can be recemented but it may be as expensive as
finding another in better condition.
A 12" Artar will certainly cover 5x7 with enough over for limited
movements. The Red-Dot series are coated and have good contrast. 14"
Artars are probably more common than 12". Mostly all Artars were
barrel mounted although they were also sold in shutters. Those now
common on the used market come mostly from retired processes cameras
so are in barrels. You will need to rig it with a rear shutter.
Remounting these lenses in shutters is quite practical but expensive,
since new shutters are themselves expensive. Check with Steve Grimes
about both remounting lenses and recementing the Dagor.
http://www.skgrimes.com
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
[Ed. note: can anyone help Murray out? Thanks!...]
From: multi-volti@softhouse.com (Murray)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Military camera (KA-45)
Date: 21 Mar 2002
Hello:
Does anyone know where technical manuals or knowledge,wiring etc.
would be available for the KA-45 aerial panoramic camera used in 1962
(Bay of Pigs). By the way, this camera appears in the movie "13 days".
The manufacturer has 'purged' this information due to it's
obsolescence.
Thank you
Murray Leshner
From: "Matt Considine" matt@considine.net
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Metrogon Astrocamera
Hi,
See Chapter 2 of Henry Paul's "Outer Space Photography." No
detailed plans, but a discussion of lenses/camera for
astrophotography.
http://www.considine.net/paulospch2.zip (5.8M; could probably be
made smaller :) )
Never made one, but hope it helps.
Regards,
Matt Considine
> I'd like to try my hand at building a camera for meteor photography. I have
> a surplus 6 inch Metrogon lens mounted in the original 6 inch diameter
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:30:42 +0100
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
From: Robert Mueller
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: field camera recomendations
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002
Stephe wrote:
> Another point is the lenses that have a large enough image circle to use
> these movements are also large and heavy and for someone interested in
> traveling any distance on foot, they aren't what is wanted. Then one has to
> consider why have a camera that has more movement than the lenses you would
> want to carry.
As someone who has a strong affinity for small, lightweight lenses, I
must disagree - see:
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/lightwei.htm
I find there are far too many examples of small lightweight lenses with
generous coverage to make such sweeping generalizations. Some of these
lenses are among my all time personal favorites. An extreme example is
the 450mm Fujinon C. This lens, in Copal #1 shutter weighs only 270g (9
1/2 oz.), yet has a 486mm image circle - that's enough to cover 11x14
with movements. This lens is clearly small enough and light enough to
carry in the field, but has coverage far in excess of the limits of any
4x5 field camera currently on the market.
Here's a few more examples of some truly tiny lenses that can actually
cover 8x10 (and exceed the capabilites of many 4x5 field cameras):
300mm Fujinon C - Copal #1 shutter, 52mm filters, 380mm IC, 250g
300mm Nikkor M - Copal #1 shutter, 52mm filters, 325mm IC, 290g
240mm Fujinon A - Copal #0 shutter, 52mm filters, 336mm IC, 225g
Here's a few more that cover 5x7 (and push the limits of some 4x5 field
cameras):
210mm G Claron - Copal #1 shutter, 49mm filters, 260mm IC, 285g
180mm Fujinon A - Copal #0 shutter, 46mm filters, 252mm IC, 170g
150mm APO Sironar-S - Copal #0 shutter, 49mm filters, 231mm IC, 225g
So far, I've only listed lens in the 10 oz. or less range (the truly
ultralight). If you are willing to consider lenses up to about 16 or 17
oz. (~480g) in Copal #0 or #1 shutters, there are many more - inluding
just about every current or recent standard 180mm - 210mm plasmat. A
few more notables:
360mm Fujinon A - Copal #1 shutter, 58mm filters, 504mm IC, 465g
300mm Fujinon A - Copal #1 shutter, 55mm filters, 420mm IC, 410g
305mm G Claron - Copal #1 shutter, 67mm filters, 381mm IC, 460g
270mm G Claron - Copal #1 shutter, 58mm filters, 335mm IC, 375g
240mm G Claron - Copal #1 shutter, 52mm filters, 298mm IC, 330g
150mm APO Sironar-W - Copal #1 shutter, 72mm filters, 252mm IC, 380g
110mm Super Symmar XL - Copal #1 shutter, 67mm filters, 288mm IC, 425g
90mm Nikkor SW - Copal #0 shutter, 67mm filters, 235mm IC, 360g
I'm sure there are others I have missed, but I think that's enough to
get the point across. I'm not trying to say that each and every user
will need all that coverage, just trying to show that just because a
lens has generous coverage doesn't necessarily make it too heavy to
carry in the field. In fact, in my entire lens repetoire, I don't have
anything that weighs more than 17 oz., yet many of my lenses will exceed
the capabilities of many 4x5 field cameras.
Again, I'm not trying to say anyone or everyone needs all that coverage
and generous camera movements. It will vary from individual to
individual. I do, however, think it might be a bit short sighted to
chose a camera with very limited movements soley on the premise that all
lenses with generous coverage are too heavy to carry in the field.
Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann - Large Format Images of Nature
http://www.thalmann.com/
From rollei Mailing list:
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: "A Voigtlander Rarity Amongst The Rare"?
you wrote:
>I'm out of my element here, so let me ask the experts... how much truth? how
>much hype?
>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item;=1346403756
>Eric Goldstein
Hard to know its age. Script on barrels was used at least until the mid
1920's but it could be a lot earlier.
The Voigtlander Kollinear, or Collinear and the Steinheil Orthostigmat
are the same lens. Steinheil actually had precedence, the Orthostigmat
being patented in 1893. The Collinear was patented in 1895. Kingslake
expresses surprize that Voigtlander was able to get a patent. The two
companies cross licensed each other. The lens is similar to a Dagor but
the order of power of the elements is different. In the Dagor the orderis
+/-/+. The patent covers the reversed order also. The reversed Dagor has
been used in some other designs, the Schneider Angulon being an example
(designed long after the Dagor patent had expired).
The Orthostigmat or Kollinear is +/+/-. There is probably no real
difference in the performance of any of these arrangements.
A Dagor type lens can be used as a convertible with the single cell
having about 1.8 times the focal length of the combined lens. The cells are
not corrected for coma so must be used at very small stops (f/45) if the
image is to be sharp over the field.
A 20" Dagor type is not too unusual. In general, Orthostigmats and
Collinears are not as common as Dagors and long focal length lenses in
general are rarer than shorter ones.
If its in good condition this would make a good long focus lens for an
8x10 or a good standard lens for an 11x14. It will probably cover 16x20
with something left over.
Given its possible value as a collector's item I would not remount it but
use it with a rear shutter.
I am a little concerned with about the "speckled" glass. Tarnish usually
looks like an oil slick or a bluish coating but is not usually speckled.
This sounds more like water or fungus damage, I would have to see the lens.
Usually, tarnish is most apparent on the front surface, the inside surfaces
and rear being somwhat protected.
I don't think lenses explode when coated. They must be uncemented. The
hear will certainly separate elements cemented with Canada Balsam, as are
all pre-ww-2 lenses and many afterward.
However, recementing is not a difficult job and can be done with modern
cement (actually easier to use than Canada Balsam). Modern cements are
cured at low heat (130F), or room temperature, or with UV light (no heat).
There is no real necessity of coating a Dagor type since it has only four
glass-air surfaces, and pretty low flare.
I have no idea what this lens is worth but probably no more than a Dagor
of similar focal length and condition.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Fuji "W" lenses
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002
Stefan Patric wrote:
> All Fujinon W lenses (as well as their other series--SW, SWD, L, A, &
> T) were multicoated with Fuji's EBC (Electon Beam Coating) process,
> which put up to 11 coatings on key lens' elements. The exception was
> the 250 f6.7, which was single coated. The W series hailed from about
> 1978 to 1980 or so. I have the 125 f5.6 W, which has a 210mm image
> circle, as well as the 90 f8.0 SW, 216mm, from this time. Both are
> excellent lenses.
This is not 100% correct. The original Fujinon W series was introduced
in the early 1970s, and all focal lengths at that time were single
coated. In the late 1970s and very early 1980s, the "New" Fujinon W
series was gradually introduced and most members of the original W
series were gradually phased out. In the Fujinon literature from that
time period, the "New" W Series was referred to as "NWS" or occasionally
just "NW". Unfortunately, the designation on the lenses remained
unchanged ("Fujinon W"). During this transition period, some focal
lengths were single coated and some multicoated. The lower cost 150mm
f6.3 Fujinon W remained single coated until it was discontinued in
mid-1982. The 250mm f6.7 Fujinon W (not to be confused with the 250mm
f6.3 Fujinon NW) was discontinued brielfy in 1982, but was resurrected
shortly thereafter and remained single coated until it was again
discontinued in 1990.
There are two ways to distinguish between single coated and multicoated
Fujinons. The first way is to simply examine the color of the
reflections on the lens surfaces. Older single coated lenses will throw
reflections that generally are of a single pale color (can be either
pale purplish-blue, pale yellow, or just plain white - it is somewhat
dependent on the light source). At most, you will see two pale colors
reflected. EBC multicoated Fujinons tend to reflect a much greater
variety of colors in much more brilliant hues. Most will, at the very
least, show some bright green reflections. I have also seen bright
yellow, bright cyan, bright magenta and bright red. Again it varies
slightly from lens to lens and with the light source. If you see bright
green reflections, that is a pretty solid indication that the lens is
EBC multicoated (I have never seen a single coated Fujinon that showed
any green reflections). If you follow the link Edward provided:
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/fujinon.htm
And scroll down the page to Figures 5. and 6. you will see some examples
of the reflections of single coated and multicoated Fujinon lenses.
The second method, which seems just as reliable is to check the location
of the lettering on the lens barrels. In my experience, almost all
Fujinon lenses with the lettering engraved on the retaining ring that
holds the front elements in the barrel are single coated. The only
exceptions I have seen are some very early SWD series Fujinons from the
mid-1970s - and on these lenses, "EBC" is clearly engraved in green
letters on this same ring. This is also the only case where the "EBC"
designation appears on the lens itself ("EBC", does however appear on
the boxes the lenses came in - if you have access to the original box)
I refer to this style as "inner lettering". Conversely, all Fujinon
lenses I've seen with the labeling painted onto the outside of the front
and rear barrels with white paint have been multicoated. I refer to
this style of lettering as "outer lettering". So, inner letering ==
single coated (with the noted exception of early SWD series); outer
lettering == EBC multicoated. See the same link, Figures 2. and 3. for
examples of inner and outer lettering.
With no official US distributor for over 12 years, information on the
Fujinon lenses can be difficult to find. That's why I created the
Fujinon section of my LF page. Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to
update it in almost two years. Thanks to the generosity of several
individuals, I have added many more pieces to my Fujinon literature
collection since my Fujinon pages went online. I also have spoken with
Julian Goldstein of Navitar, Inc. (formerly D.O. Industries - Exclusive
US Distributor of Fujinon Professional Lenses). As a result of all this
research, I wrote a rather detailed article on "Fujinon Lenses - Past
and Present" that was published in the Nov/Dec 2001 issue of View
Camera. The information in the article is both more complete and more
up to date than what I currently have on my web site. If you want to
know more about these wonderful large format lenses, you may wish to
obtain a copy of that issue.
Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann - Large Format Images of Nature
http://www.thalmann.com/
Kerry's Large Format Homepage
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Fuji "W" lenses
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002
Kerry L. Thalmann wrote: (snipped)
An addendum to my previous reply...
Early Fujinon A series lenses were single coated. Later samples (from
the early 1980s on) are EBC multicoated.
Ditto for the SW series and the T series.
The SWD series was EBC multicoated at introduction and thereafter.
The L series was never multicoated - single coated only right up until
the last member of the series (the 210mm L) was discontinued circa 1990.
The C series was introduced in July 1982 and has always been EBC
multicoated.
Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann - Large Format Images of Nature
http://www.thalmann.com/
Kerry's Large Format Homepage
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Perfect Wide Angle
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002
evilap@hotmail.com (Enrique Vila) wrote:
>Hi...
>
>Last couple of month IYm being changing my large format equipment in
>favor of more practical gear (always 4x5)
>
>Now IYm evaluating my lenses... currently I own angulon 90, sironar
>150 and tele-xenar 240.
>
>I was sujested to change to Super Angulon 90 and a 210mm wich are more
>versatile choices...
>
>I was wondering, which are your lens choices and why?
>
>I work mainly outdoors both in city and nature field.
>
>Cheers...
The Super-Angulon is a better lens than the Angulon, but larger and
heavier. For a 90mm lens this is probably not an issue. If your
Angulon is a good performer you will not gain a lot by replacing it
with a SA.
210mm is a good all around focal length but may not be suitable for
what you do. I would not get rid of the 150mm or the telephoto in any
case. To get an idea of what a 210mm lens will do mask off the ground
glass to about 2-3/4" x 3-1/2" and use the 150mm lens.
The old chrome barrel convertible type Symmars are good lenses,
although not up to the later versions, and are fairly cheap used.
The current Symmar and Sironar series are superb lenses although
expensive.
Remember that the focal length is chosen to "crop" the image in the
camera without moving the camera. The perspective of the iamge is
determined entirely by the location of the camera in relation to the
subject, the field of view is controlled by the focal length of the
lens or by cropping in printing (of course you can not get a wide
angle view by cropping).
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: beasleyglb@mindspring.com (Gary Beasley)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: LF Lens image circle size
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002
msherck@aol.comimagine (Msherck) wrote:
>Is there a resource listing the image circles from lots of new and older lenses
>so that those of us who are in the used lens market can easily determine
>whether a particular lens will meet our needs? Alternatively, are image
>circles measured or calculated, and if calculated, how?
>
>Any information anyone can give on the subject of determining the image circle
>of LF lenses would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
>
>Mike
>
There is a manual called "Large Format Optical Reference Manual" by
J.L. "Woody" Wooden that fits your description.
Published by Data Obscura Press
!700 Cedar Bluffs Way
Las Vegas, NV 89128
(702) 360-8718
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Symmar lenses
Date: 16 Apr 2002
"Mike King" mikeking@cableone.net wrote
> Don't have one but with the old "Convertible" Symmar you removed the front
> element not the rear.
>
> --
> darkroommike
> ......................
> "George Collins" gjcollins@worldnet.att.net wrote
> > Hi,
> >
> > Hope my question is related to the subject here. What is the difference
> > between a Symmar and a Symmar-S lens? With the old Symmar, should the
> rear
> > element be remove for long focal length use, or does it matter which
> element
> > is removed with the older lens (I'm assuming the "-S" lens are new). For
> a
> > 210-mm lens how would the price of a used Symmar compare to that of a
> > Symmar-S in the same condition? If I recall correctly, there is some loss
> > of image "quality" when the Symmar is used in it's long focal-length
> > configuration. How significant is this with the older Symmars? Isn't
> there
> > a Symmar SMC lens too? Where do they fit in the picture?
> >
> > tia,
> > George
The earlier convertible Symmar is the same basic design as the
later non-convertible ones. The difference is that the individual
cells, or at least the rear cell, of the earlier version was optimised
to work alone. Schneider discovered that most Symmar users prefered
lenses which were optimised for the complete lens.
The rear cell of a newer Symmar, or a Sironar, or other similar
lens will always work individually. The focal length depends on the
design of the lens, the speed is about f/12.5.
Ideally, the individual cells of convertible lenses should be
placed behind the iris. This is the best position to correct for
flatness of field, coma, and spherical aberration. However, the
performance is not much worse if the cell is in front of the diaphragm
since the diaphragm is seldom in the optimum position anyway. The
cells of Plasmat lenses, like this one, are slightly retrofocus when
used behind the diaphragm (i.e. with the convex surface facing the
subject), and slightly telephoto when used in front of the diaphragm.
So, while performance may be a little better in the rear position the
required bellows draw is significantly shorter when used in front.
This may make some lenses usable on some cameras where the optimum
position would not be.
The f/5.6 Symmar and similar lenses, are not perfectly symmetrical.
While the structure of the two cells is the same the focal length of
the front cell is made slightly longer. The purpose of this is to
optimise performance for infinity focus. A perfectly symmetrical lens
is optimised for equal object and image distances, in other words, for
1:1 magnification.
The original f/6.8 Symmar was a Dagor knock-off and perfectly
symmetrical.
The Plasmat type lens is derived from the Dagor by making the inside
cemented interfaces of the Dagor air spaced. The extra degrees of
freedom allows much better correction of zonal spherical aberration, a
serious problem for Dagor type lenses, and has extremely good
correction for astigmatism.
The performance of the individual cells is much poorer than for the
complete lens but quite usable. The cells should be stopped down to
around f/32 for decent sharpness and the coverage is no larger than
for the complete lens despite the longer focal lengths.
The performance of individual Plasmat cells is better than for
individual Dagor cells, which are not corrected for coma and must be
operated at very small stops (f/45) for reasonable sharpness.
Some color correction is also lost so sharpness is better if a green
or yellow (or cyan for that matter) filter is used.
Symmars with -S (for Spezial) are the newer ones. Multi-coated
lenses say MC on them. All f/5.6 Symmars are coated but earlier ones
are single-coated.
Even older Symmars are very good lenses.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
postscript: Convex and concave are reversed in my post:-(
From: bg174@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Gudzinowicz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Xenotar 105/2.8
Date: 17 Apr 2002
Collin Brendemuehl dpcwilbur@excite.com wrote:
> I looked at a nice 105/2.8 Xenotar yesterday,
> and it looks like it'll cover 4x5 stopped down just a bit.
> (Might take a test to prove, though.)
> To find out more info, I did some searching and
> can only find info on the 100/2.8 Xenotar.
> This lens doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere.
> Was it a short-production-run formula?
> Any info appreciated.
The 105 coverage is 56 degrees or 112 mm, which is enough for
6x9 but not 4x5. Coverage angle doesn't improve much if at
all when stopping down. The lens probably was made in the 1950's (check
the serial number database on Schneider's site).
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Goerz Triva
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002
"LF Shooter" bugme73@hotmail.com wrote:
>Hi,
>Can anyone identify this lens for me?
>It reads in red color " Goerz Opt. Co. Kenro K2 "
>It's in a barrel, f/10 to f/45. No focal length markings.
>It's not an Artar or Dagor, i do'nt think.
>Not sure what it covers or was used for.
>Any help would be appriciated.
>Thanks.
Kenro made process cameras. They bought lenses from a number of
manufacturers with their own brand on them.
This is a bit of a puzzle. I suspect its a Blue-Dot Trigor, a
special version of the Dagor intended for wide-angle process work,
mainly for making off-set plates. However, the longer focal length
Trigors were f/11, not f/10. It may be a special, one Goerz catalogue
states that Trigors had previously been built on a custom basis but
were being offered in off the shelf models.
In any case, the characteristics are similar to a Dagor except the
lens is better corrected for zonal spherical. They are intended for
use at around 1:1.
You can verify the construction by examining the lens with a small
flashlight. Shine it into the lens and count reflections. Cemented
interfaces will be very dim but visible. Glass-air surfaces will be
much brighter, even in coated lenses.
The Plasmat type lens has much better performance than the Dagor for
this type of application (and in fact for general applications) and is
probably cheaper to make because it has two fewer cemented surfaces.
Most WA process lenses and copy lenses are of the Plasmat type.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: aaron@post-modern.net (Aaron van de Sande)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Tuan's Large Format Home Page
Date: 25 Apr 2002
Jean-David Beyer jdbeyer@exit109.com wrote
> Greg wrote:
> >
> > http://www.ai.sri.com/~luong/new.html This worked as of just now,
>
> True enough, but none of the links work.
Try this one...
http://www.ai.sri.com/~luong/photography/lf/
From: Michael Briggs MichaelBriggs@EarthLink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Kodak Aerostigmat Lens
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002
John Hannon wrote:
> I have a Kodak Aerostigmat 12in f5.0 lens mounted in a large metal assembly.
> (Part of a Fairchild K-17 camera?)
Rudolf Kingslake (a noted optical designer who worked at Kodak) gives
some information about this aerial reconnaissance lens in a 1947 January
article in the Journal of the Optical Society of America. He says that
the lens was made for the K-24 camera and that the lens is of the Tessar
design. This is a highly successful design of four elements in three
groups that has been and is still used for many lenses.
Does the lens still have its serial number? If so, you can date it by
the Kodak date code. The first two letters are decoded via CAMEROSITY
= 1234567890. This lens was probably only made for WWII, so the first
letter should be "E".
--Michael
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Kodak Aerostigmat Lens
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002
"John Hannon" jjhannon@attbi.com wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I have a Kodak Aerostigmat 12in f5.0 lens mounted in a large metal assembly.
>(Part of a Fairchild K-17 camera?) There is aperture control but it is a
>thumb wheel control with no markings. No shutter. The glass looks very good.
>There is little information about this lens in my searches on the web. I am
>wondering if this is a good lens to bother with. I know it will probably
>need it's own tripod for support. Any information you have on this lens
>would be appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>John Hannon
I have one of these guys. Its mounted in a diaphragm assembly which
has a coupling to a control on the camera. As Michael Briggs points
out its a Tessar type. Mine came in a housing with cone and a heater
at the front. My lens dates from 1941 (EA prefix). I bought it for
nearly nothing at C&H; Surplus because the cement in the rear element
was completely cloudy. I recemented it using Canada Balsam (will never
do that again) so its a usable lens, but it needs to be remounted in a
shutter and that is just a little too expensive.
Evidently these lenses were originaly cemented with Canada Balsam.
The heater is partly for keeping the lens from frosting over and
partly for keeping the cement from crystalizing at the very cold
temperatures these lenses were subjected to in use. Not long after
this synthetic cements began to be used in aerial lenses. Somewhere, I
think in the patent for the Aero Ektar, is a comparison of this lens
with the Aero Ektar. In fact, the Aerostigmat has less spherical
aberration than the Aero Ektar but has less astigmatism and, of
course, is much faster.
Aerial lenses generaly do quite well for general photographic use.
Steve Grimes could estimate the cost of remounting this lens in a
shutter.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Rob" robagram@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Military camera (KA-45)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002
The guy in this article might be able to help if you can hunt him down...
http://www.roi.bourns.com/thirteen%20days.htm
Murray multi-volti@softhouse.com wrote
> Hello:
>
> Does anyone know where technical manuals or knowledge,wiring etc.
> would be available for the KA-45 aerial panoramic camera used in 1962
> (Bay of Pigs). By the way, this camera appears in the movie "13 days".
>
> The manufacturer has 'purged' this information due to it's
> obsolescence.
>
> Thank you
>
> Murray Leshner
From: whitneyred@aol.com (WhitneyRed)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 06 Apr 2002
Subject: Re: 80mm Super Symmar XL--users? Comments?
Jon - - I've got the 80XL and, like Roy, I've been pleased with its
performance. I have not experienced the problem that Kerry reported re:
wide-open softness when focusing.
The only frustration I experienced is that I feel the lens really benefits from
a center filter. I shoot landscapes with color transparency film and found the
light fall off to be objectionable for a lot of my big sky scenes. The filter
does take care of the problem. And I can use the same filter on my 110XL for
those scenes where the 110 needs it.
I find the 80XL to be very sharp and contrasty - in a fairlly small package -
and I recommend it. Good luck with your decision....
Bill
william.stone@juno.com
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 80mm Super Symmar XL--users? Comments?
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002
WhitneyRed wrote:
> Jon - - I've got the 80XL and, like Roy, I've been pleased with its
> performance. I have not experienced the problem that Kerry reported re:
> wide-open softness when focusing.
Although I am the one often referenced when this discussion comes up, I
was not the first to report problems focusing the 80mm Super Symmar XL
wide open. Although I experienced the problem the first time I used
this lens, in January 2001, I did not comment publically on it until
late November, 2001 - after reading published reports by others
documenting this problem. For example, Joe Cornish mentioned this issue
in his review of this lens in the October, 2001 issue of the British
publication "Outdoor Photography". So, although samples that exhibit
this problem may very well be in the minority, mine was not the only
lens to suffer from this malady. Nor was I the first, or only one, to
report it. For more details, including a direct quote from the Joe
Cornish review, see:
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00773A
That aside, whenever I discuss this issue, I like to point out that my
observations are based on a sample size of two VERY early samples (one
extremely soft wide open, one quite acceptable at all apertures). That
may very well be stale data at this point. I don't really know. I have
not tested any additional lenses. So, I have no idea if the problem has
been remedied. It may have been. In concept, I love the idea of a
compact, modern, multicoated lens in this focal length with generous
coverage. And I was extremely excited when the 80mm SS XL was
announced. I intend to give it another try in the future. Based on my
very limted experience, I recommend buying from a reputable dealer that
stands behind the products they sell. Test the lens immediately and
return it if the performance is unsatisfactory. And most of all, let us
know the results. It would be a shame if this lens got a bad reputation
based on very limited testing of early samples. On the other hand, if
there are still suspect lenses in circulation, it would be nice to know.
> The only frustration I experienced is that I feel the lens really benefits from
> a center filter. I shoot landscapes with color transparency film and found the
> light fall off to be objectionable for a lot of my big sky scenes. The filter
> does take care of the problem. And I can use the same filter on my 110XL for
> those scenes where the 110 needs it.
I echo Bill's experience about the center filter. I found one
absolutely necessary with this lens for the type of work I do
(landscapes on 4x5 high contrast color transparency film). The
necessity of using a center filter is always highly subjective. Some
people claim they ALWAYS need them, other claim NEVER. For me, I'm
somewhere in the middle. I have personally always found one very
beneficial for my needs for anything shorter than 90mm on 4x5, but not
necessary for 90mm and longer. As Bill mentioned, the same filter can
also be used on a 110 XL. At the time I was testing the 80mm XL, I was
also shooting 5x7 color transparencies. I have never found a center
filter necessary (for my needs) with the 110 XL on 4x5, but I did notice
an improvement when using one with the 110 XL on 5x7. As always, YMMV -
especially on a subjective issue with many variables. I don't find this
to be a knock against the 80mm SS XL. After all, I also reached the
same conclusion regarding 75mm lenses I have used from Nikon and
Rodenstock. It's simple physics. The wider the angle of view, the
greater the fall-off. Where the breaking point occurs varies from
person to person and also depends on materials and even subject matter.
This is a case where there really is no substitute for individual
testing.
Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann - Large Format Images of Nature
http://www.thalmann.com/
Kerry's Large Format Homepage
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: lens performance over distances
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002
hogarth hogarth@directvinternet.com wrote:
>Consider a comparison of two lenses:
>
> 9.0/150mm G-Claron
> 5.6/150mm Sironar-S
>
>Yes, I know these lenses don't normally compare. Stay with
>me here...
>
>The G-Claron is a process lens, and is optimized for 1:1
>copy work. It will also work at infinity focus (stopped
>down). The Sironar-S is optimized for middle distance to
>infinity, but can also be used at 1:1.
>
>When used outside their optimum lens-to-subject distance,
>how does performance fall off? What will I see in the
>resulting photographs to illustrate this performance fall
>off? Will overall sharpness suffer? Distortion? Center vs.
>edges? What?
>
>Specifically, say I take the same landscape (infinity focus)
>picture with each lens. How will the resulting photos differ
>- what will I see that tells me which lens took which photo?
>
>Similarly, say I take the same closeup (about 1:1
>magnification) of a flower with each lens. How will the
>resulting photos differ?
You may not see any difference.
The main aberration which comes up when lenses are used at some
distance radically far from their optimised distance is coma. Coma is
a sort of off axis spherical aberration. It is a tear drop shaped blur
which increases off axis. Come is proportional to stop so is reduced
or eliminated by stopping down.
Getting from from optimised distance can also affect spherical
aberration.
The sensitivity of lenses to this depends on the variation of the
angles which the light rays strike the various surfaces inside the
lens. The steeper the normal angles, the more they are likely to
change with object distance. So, fast lenses, wide angle lenses, and
complex lenses all tend to be more sensitive to distance.
Most process lenses are rather simple and are very slow, so they
typically show little difference in performance. The "dialyte" type,
four elements, all air spaced, seems particularly stable with regard
to changes in aberrations with object distance.
It was determined many years ago (I am having a senior moment trying
to remember the name, Herschell? also Ernst Abbe), that a lens can be
simultaneously corrected for astigmatism and spherical aberration at
only one object distance. At least lenses with fixed elements.
For very critical use the lens should be designed for the particular
object distance its going to be used for.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Lens Coatings and Coverage for TLR
you wrote:
>At what point did coated lenses, especially multi-coated lenses, appear
>on the various TLRs? Are there some lenses that have "better" coatings
>than others?
>
>Do the various 75mm lenses lose anything in coverage compared to the
>80mm lenses, or are they adequate, or more than adequate, for the TLR
>negatives?
>
>Thanks.
>--
>Shel Belinkoff
>mailto:belinkoff@earthlink.net
Lens coating with vacuum deposited hard coatings became general after
about 1946. By the early 1950's most lenses were coated. I am not sure when
multi-coatings first became available, I think the mid 1960's but were not
widely applied until perhaps twenty years ago.
There is considerably less difference between a multi-coated and single
coated lens than between a single coated and uncoated lens. Multi coatings
become important in complex lenses such as zoom lenses.
The diagonal of a 2-1/4 negative is about 81mm. The angle for an 80mm
lens is about 53degrees, for a 75mm lens about 56degrees. This is well
within the wide open coverage of a Tessar type lens. The five element
Xenotar and Planar types have somewhat better wide open performance than a
Tessar. Neither type of lens is stretched much in a TLR.
FWIW, 135mm, f/4.5 Zeiss Tessars used to be the standard lens for the 4x5
Speed Graphic (slightly wide angle). The diagonal of a 4x5 film is 152mm.
This requires about a 59degree angle. The remarkable 127mm, f/4.7 Kodak
Ektar, a Tessar type, was a later standard on 4x5 Speed Graphics. That
requires a coverage angle of 62deg, which the lens will do stopped down to
f/8. The lenses in Rolleis are loafing.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Tom Ferguson tomf2468@pipeline.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Cheap Lenses
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001
A few suggestions. You will most likely be buying older lenses. Old lenses
weren't made with as tight quality control, and some have been abused. So,
if at all possible test before you buy. Older lenses will not be wonderful
wide open, but should (as a general rule) look great 2 stops down. Older
lenses without coating (or with single, not multi, coating) will not perform
as well shooting into a bright light source (flare). But, with a shade,
should perform great in more normal situations.
The 90mm will be hardest, the modern wide angle lenses are truly better.
One older lens is the 90mm Angulon. The 90mm Wollensak is similar (but more
variable in quality, test this one first!). The 90mm Rodenstok Gerenor is
available used. While it isn't that old a lens, it is an old formula. I
own a 90mm F6.3 Komura. It is an inexpensive single coated modern formula
lens. I'm amazed at it's quality for the price. I think I paid about
$300US for it. I shot it against a friend's 90mm Fuji, and was not at all
ashamed ;-)
The 300mm is easier. Look for convertable Symars (not the newer Symar-S or
APO Symar), Wollensak Raptars (the Raptars are coated, the Velostigmats are
not), a wide assortment of Artars and other graphic arts lenses are now
available cheap (all the graphic arts owners have gone digital). You night
even afford a 12 inch Ektar or it's "cousin" the Osaka (a nice modern made
copy with coating).
Hope that helps.
--
Tom Ferguson
http://www.ferguson-photo-design.com
> From: "Frank h" frank@hovie.net
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001
> Subject: Cheap Lenses
>
> Ok, I just dove into LF and have taken enough photos to understand that all
> lenses are not created equal. - obviously. My kodak 170mm lens at infinity
> is sharp in the center and blurred on the edges with the lens and film
> planes parallel. It is an f6 lens and I was stopped down to f9. The problem
> became accute when I pointed the lens up at the building adding front rise
> and tilt. I believe stopped down to f32 may make it better but I need lenses
> and don't own fort Knox. Not wanting another dog I was hoping for some
> preferrences and avoids - knowing that for used lenses, I will spend over
> $250 each. I wil be looking for a 270 - 300mm and a 90mm lens in the next
> few weeks. Any advice would be apreciated. Thanks - Frank
From: Jeffrey Goggin audidudi@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lenses for Polaroid MP4, usable for LF?
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001
> I have 6 lenses made by Polaroid for their MP4 camera. I believe those
> lenses can be used for up to 8x10 polaroid film. My question is if those
> lenses are usable for regular large format cameras. The lenses are:
>
> all purpose lens 44-65 - 135mm lens; f/4.5 to f/32
> copying lens 44-66 - 105mm lens; f/4.5 to f/32
> macro lens 44-69 - 35mm lens; f/4.5 to f/32
> 44-70 - 17mm lens; f/4 to f/22
> 44-68 - 50mm lens; f/4.5 to f/32
> 44-67 - 75mm lens; f/4.5 to f/32
>
> Sure the another question is if those lenses are sharp enough.
I have the 75mm, 105mm and 135mm lenses and use them with my 6x9 camera to
good effect. However, at the apertures you will typically shoot at, the
image circles will barely cover 4x5 (without movements!) let alone 8x10. In
fact, I just recently discovered that a 6x9 with an extreme amount of rise
For the money, though, these lenses are quite good performers if you can
live within their limitations. I originally bought them for my daughter to
use (didn't want to risk my "good" lenses being dropped or otherwise
damaged) but could happily live with them myself if I had to for economic
reasons. (All three, in excellent condition, cost a total of $130 ... if
nothing else, they're a good source for cheap Copal Press shutters!)
As for the 17mm, 35mm and 50mm lenses, to paraphrase Sgt. Schultz, "I know
nothing ... noth-thing!)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001
From: Philip Wang philip.wang@att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lenses for Polaroid MP4, usable for LF?
Thanks for the reply.
According to Polaroid, 105mm is a copy lens. 75/50/35/17mm are macro lenses,
Only 135mm can be focused at infinity?
They probably can be used on my little Speed Graphic 2x3.
According to the other post, those lenses take standard Copal 1 or Prontor
press
shutters. Any source for those shutters?
Thanks,
- philip
From: Pam Niedermayer pam_pine@cape.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lenses for Polaroid MP4, usable for LF?
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001
The Polaroid lens/shutter is the easiest and cheapest way to get one
of these shutters, they typically go on ebay for $75 or less if the
lens itself isn't in good shape.
Pam
Philip Wang wrote:
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> According to Polaroid, 105mm is a copy lens. 75/50/35/17mm are macro lenses,
> Only 135mm can be focused at infinity?
...
From: Jeffrey Goggin audidudi@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lenses for Polaroid MP4, usable for LF?
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001
> According to Polaroid, 105mm is a copy lens. 75/50/35/17mm are macro lenses,
> Only 135mm can be focused at infinity?
Like I said, I know nothing about the 17/35/50mm lenses but the 75, 105 and 135s can
most definitely be focused at infinity. Their designs may have been optimized for
closeup work but they're nonetheless capable of producing sharp images when focused
at infinity.
> They probably can be used on my little Speed Graphic 2x3.
Sure, although the shutters are fairly large in diameter (at least on my 75 and 135)
and the lensboards for your Speed Graphic may need to be modified to accomodate
them. You might also have some problems folding the camera with them installed but
I can't verify this firsthand.
> According to the other post, those lenses take standard Copal 1 or Prontor press
> shutters. Any source for those shutters?
Hmm ... my lenses (Tominons, all) came with shutters. Now that I think about it,
though, I think they are from an MP3 and not an MP4 ... I had assumed they were the
same but maybe not?
From: "Jim Bancroft" bancroft@home.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lenses for Polaroid MP4, usable for LF?
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001
Hi-
They are all macro lenses designed for 1.25X to 30X use with the MP-4 copy
system. As far as I know only the 135mm will cover 4X5 at infinity. Keep
in mind also that these lenses have threads which require a polaroid
shutter.
jim
From: drdagor@hotmail.com (Dr. Dagor)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 6 1/2 Dagor info REQ/19 in Artar info REQ!!!!!!!!!
Date: 8 Apr 2002
> Recently purchased but not yet received an 8x10 Deardorff with a 61/2 Dagor
> (Actually a 5x7 lens) and a 19 in Artar barrel lens. Any info on these
> lenses?????good, bad ,fair
In a word... Great.
You can tell by my email pseudonym that I'm biased. But with good
reason. The Dagor was the first or second of the great symmetrical
lenses--the Tessar being the other one introduced at about the same
time. The Artar came along soon after and was also one of the great
families of lenses. The Dagor was in production continuously from
about 1890 until the 1980's. Amazing! Economics, world politics,
marketing, and computers finally did it in. But the coated lenses
from the 60's on are still fine lenses. The 165 WA Dagor is a staple
in the lens box of many photographers today. The Artar is another
honey, but a different breed of cat.
The 165 Dagor is a Wide Angle unit. Like all Dagors it is a
symmetrical lens (front and back groups the same) with 6 elements
cemented into 2 groups. Because it is symmetrical you get good lens
performance with movement. Because there are only 4 air to air
surfaces, you get little flare and remarkably good contrast for an
"antique". On the bench this lens will perform as well as modern
lenses at f22 and f32, although it gets soft at full aperture.
You probably have one produced by American Optical under license
sometime between about 1958 and 1968. The serial number will probably
be somewhere in the range from 770000 to about 815000. This is a
modern, coated lens. No fooling. While all these are good lenses,
there was some improvement in coatings and manufacturing for lenses
near the late end of this range. If your lens has a serial number
above 779000 or so (depending on size), then the front filter ring is
not blackened, but left as polished brass. These are Gold Ring
Dagors. While optically little different from earlier units, these
are considered more collectable, and demand a higher price.
165 WA Dagors have recently sold on Ebay for over $400, (late models
in great condition) and they are worth every penny. I've seen
pristine ones in stores for over $650. Also worth it.
Your Artar is also a terrific lens, but very different from the Dagor.
The 19" lens does not have a big image circle for its focal length.
But it is incredibly sharp, doesn't weigh much (you'll come to
appreciate this), and is Apo corrected (assuming it is a later one).
This makes it terrific for color work. Originally designed for
enlarger and graphics work, the Artar proved so versatile that they
were sold in shutters for LF cameras like your Deardorff.
The only problem with the Artar is that it has four elements in two
air-spaced groups. So there are 8 glass-air surfaces. As a result,
all but the most modern Artars have lower contrast than comparable
Dagors or most other lenses of the same focal length. To help deal
with this, use a compendium bellows or other lens hood. It isn't
uncommon to see folks use lens hoods that are a foot long on these
lenses. One guy I know recommends that the hood be as long as the
focal length of the lens! Yipes. But for your effort you will be
rewarded with incredibly crisp photographs. Artars vary in price more
than Dagors. You can get a good, older 19" Artar in a barrel for $50.
But a late, 19", Red-Dot Apo-Artar in a really good shutter can
easily go for $750.
yeah... I'd say they are good lenses.
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] SL66 from H.E. Chamberlain
you wrote:
>Yes, the Graphic was what I meant. Thanks for the
>info Richard. How can you tell the difference between
>the early and later Optar lenses? I think you said a
>while back that you have one of these cameras. Are
>you using it?
Rodenstock Optars say "Made in Germany" on them. I think they also have
the Rodenstock name on them. These are very late Optars, I think mainly on
Super Graphics but maybe also on late top rangefinder models.
I have at the moment four 4x5 Speed Graphics of varying ages and a 2x3
Miniature S.G. which I am restoring. Actually, I want to find a Graflok
back for it. Such were made for the older 2x3 model but are rare.
Two of the 4x5 cameras have 127mm, f/4.7 Kodak Ektars, two have 135mm,
f/4.5 Zeiss Tessars. The 2x3 has a 101mm, f/4.5 Ektar.
Yup, I use them. Curiously the oldest one, a pre-Anniversary model dating
from about 1938 is the lightest, the next lightest is a Pacemaker series.
I've done a lot of work on them so they are my babies.
I also have a 4x5 Super-D Graflex, with an Optar on it. The 190mm f/5.6
Optar for this camera is an excellent lens. Its obviously a Wollensak lens
from the construction of the cells and color of the coating (rather blue)
but doesn't have any other markings. This was the alternative to the Ektar.
I had a chance to buy an Ektar for it long ago and passed it up. However,
this lens does not exhibit the excessive coma of the 135mm, f/4.5 Wollensak
Raptar/Optar, its very sharp. The Graflex makes you careful but I like it
for portraits and have gotten good results with kids for much the same
reason that Rolleis are good, namely that the camera doesn't seem to be
staring at them. The Super-D is the last of the line but is surprizingly
close in construction and features to the original 1905 models. I really
feel as though I should have a flash pan and flash powder when using it.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Not your average Planar vs. Tessar question.
you wrote:
>Gee, and I have a pre-war Tessar (uncoated of course) on a Rollei New
>Standard that is amazingly sharp. Must be an aberration in manufacture, but
>one I am happy to say I have. ;-)
>
>Peter K
Not the same lens. The Rollei Tessar is a fixed lens focused by moving
the whole lens. The Ikonta and Super-Ikonta have front element focusing
lenses. The front element is moved by the focusing mechanism. Since it has
most of the power of the lens a small movement relative to the center
element changes the focal length of the lens by a relatively large amount.
The problem is that the corrections are upset. The general approach to a
front element focusing lens is to correct best at infinity. The assumption
is that the smallest details will be wanted in such an image so the
sharpness of the lens should be best there. \
Despite all this the performance of these lenses is remarkably good.
Partly that is due to the excellent rangefinder on the Super Ikonta
cameras. Partly, it just seems to be a well designed lens of its type.
While a front element focusing lens may not be optimum it substantially
simplifies the design of the camera. No moving bellows or focusing
mechanism is needed. Just a precision thread (usually three or four threads
in tandem to average out any irregularities). In the Super Ikonta the lens
rotation is coupled via a fairly simple gear mechanism to a rangefinder
which operates on the principle of two counter-rotating prisms. The amount
this system bends light is dependant on the relative position of the two
elements. By coupling to the rotating lens cell a very simple, stable, and
accurate, focusing means is obtained.
Rudolph Kingslake shows some performance curves for a front element
focusing lens at various focal lengths in an article presented to the
National Bureau of Standards Semicentennial Symposium on Optical Image
Evaluation, October, 19851 and reprinted in the publication _Optical Image
Evaluation_ National Bureau of Standards Circular 526 April 29, 1954 p. 259
(Yes, I read _everything_)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roland Smith [mailto:roland@dnai.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000
>Subject: Re: [Rollei] Not your average Planar vs. Tessar question.
>
>
>I agree. I have both Moskva 5 and Super Ikonta C (uncoated) cameras, a
>representative sample of each. They do not measure up to any of my Rollei
>TLRs. Perhaps it is due to the front element focus or, maybe, due to
>movement of the 105mm lens.
>
>Roland Smith
>roland@dnai.com
>
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Not your average Planar vs. Tessar question.
you wrote:
>Thanks Richard. Do you have alink or know where I can read the Kingslake
>piece.
>I have read his books, but this paper would be of interest to me.
>
>Peter K
I do not. I was just lucky to find a copy of it. Large libraries should
be able to get a copy on interlibrary loan. This is a report on a symposium
held in 1951 by the US National Bureau of Standards, now called the
National Institute of Standards and Technology. It is published as National
Bureau of Standards Circular 526. Orginally offered by the Superintendent
of Documents of the US Government Printing Office.
The paper by Kingslake is entitled: "Position of best focus of a lens in
the presence of spherical aberration". In it are some charts showing the
change in spherical and focus position for a front element focusing lens fo
the Tessar type at differing postions of the front element. These are the
only graphs of this sort I've ever seen in the literature.
Most of the papers in this publication are quite technical, there are a
few aimed at the measurement of lenses for aerial survey work. They are
generally concerned with methods of evaluating the performance of lenses.
I picked this thing up recently and have not had a chance to read over
all the papers in it. I think some of them are probably beyond me but the
Kingslake paper is written with his characteristic lucidity so I've managed
to understand most of it.
If you can't find this from a local source e-mail me privately and I will
Xerox it for you.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 03 May 2002
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rolleiflex Pics
Dan Kalish at kaliushkin@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> AFAIK, depth of field ultimately depends on the final print size. This
> consideration is factored in by the circle of confusion. Thus, a 35mm
> negative would need a smaller circle of confusion than a 120 negative.
> Usually, the diameter of the circle of confusion is something like 1/2000 of
> the focal length.
>
Depth of field depends on the size of the circle of least confusion, to use
the proper terminology, in the final print size.
> I.e., depth of field isn't an absolutely determined number: it depends on
> the size of the circle of confusion you're using.
>
Correct.
> A large format dealer made a statement which I believe to be totally wrong.
> He said that 8x10 lenses are much more expensive than 4x5 lenses because the
> former needs higher precision to match the same depth of field. I said he
> was totally wrong: since 8x10 is usually contact printed and 4x5 is
> enlarged, the 8x10 lens would only need a smaller circle of confusion
> diameter.
>
This dealer is wrong. Large format lenses are more expensive simply because
they are produced in much smaller numbers. It has absolutely nothing to do
with the level of precision.
Bob
From camera makers mailing list:
From: veggie@monmouth.com
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002
Subject: [Cameramakers] Inexpensive Gerogon Shutter Installation
I recently bought a 240mm f9 APO-Gerogon. It was quite a bargain at $23,
apparently new and unused - it was still in original packaging.
I've fitted it into an Elgeet No. 3X shutter. This is a self-cocking
shutter originally used on an oscilloscope camera. The Elgeet came with
the original 75 mm lens still installed; the 75mm doesn't cover 4x5 so I
seem to have gained a pair of paperweights here. The Elgeet shutter has a
speed range of 1-1/100th second and I use the "T" setting for focussing.
The Gerogon design has the mounting ring it its center with the optical
elements protruding out from both sides of the flange. The metric threads
on this lens did not match the 1.75"-44tpi threads on the shutter so I
chose to mount the shutter at the rear of the lens. Steve Grimes website
has a useful discussion on this type of mounting.
To mount this lens I machined a short lens barrel 1" long and with an
internal diameter a bit over 2", just enough to allow the rear element
group to slide freely into the barrel. The Gerogon required a depth of
7/8" to accomodate the rear element group; the original flange was then
mounted to the end of the barrel.
I machined a short threaded portion on the end of the barrel to screw
into the Elgeet. Interestingly, there seems to be some variation in the
thread dimensions of the Elgeet shutters. The treads which I cut on the
barrel end were a good fit for the shutter which I used and also fit well
into a Graflex Speed-O-Graph shutter which I also have. These threads
were too small for a second Elgeet which I tried - I'd estimate that a
1.77-44tpi male thread will be required when I eventually fit a lens to
the second Elgeet shutter.
I'm using the Gerogon on a older Calumet (C-400?) view camera. There is
no vignetting with the front standard in the full fall position or at
either full slide position. I do see some vignetting with the standard at
full rise (about 2 1/2" on this camera), not unexpected with a rear
shutter. There is a full image at 2" rise and I'm prepared to accept the
1/2" loss of front vertical displacement. I removed the iris from the
Elgeet in order to minimize obstruction of the image path through the
shutter; this is no loss as I'm using the diaphragm in the Gerogon which
of course is already calibrated to the lens.
There probably would be adequate coverage for an 8x10 view camera with
this installation but the movements would be limited.
I've also fitted a 13" f10 APO-Raptar to the Speedi-O-Graph shutter. The
rear elements on this lens protrude 5/8" behind the flange and I was able
to mount the lens in a 3/4" long barrel. The mounting ring threads were
30 tpi , a pitch which I can't cut on the lathe which I use, so I again
mounted the original flange on the end of the barrel. The threads which
mate with the shutter were also 1.75-44tpi.
There is no vignetting evident with the Raptar even with full front
standard rise. I presume that this is a consequence of the greater
prjection distance of the longer focal length Raptar. I left the iris in
the Speedi-O-Graph shutter as it retracted fully into the shutter and did
not present an light path obstruction.
The modest price of the Speedi-O-Graph and Elgeet shutters, $30-50, makes
this type of installation an attractive proposition. The Gerogons also
seem to be available at quite a low price.
From camera makers mailing list:
From: "Gene Johnson" genej2@cox.net
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] KS-87 Lenses
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002
I can't tell you much about the 18" lens. I've never seen one in person.
I've heard it wieghs more than ten pounds. I can tell you all you want
about the other three, since I have them. In general, the 3 and 12 inch
lenses are pretty big. The 6 inch is pretty manageable, though still a good
sized chunk of glass. I don't have a lot of time right now, but I would be
happy to get you some dimensions as soon as I can.
Gene Johnson
From: ashwood@eagle.ca (Harold Clark)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: SA 90XL 5.6 vs. SS 80XL 4.5 vs. Nikon SW 90 4.5
Date: 6 May 2002
"theo" theo4a1@attbi.com wrote
> Am trying to sort out choice between lenses. Am leaning toward Schneider
> Super Symmar 90 XL f4.5 because of speed (for focusing ease) and focal
> length, but have heard conflicting reports. Would appreciate input from
> users--not necessarily limited to above lenses. I'll use this in
> architectural interiors. Can I get away with no center filter for color
> negs?
Don't overlook the 90mm f8 Nikkor. It has been my main architectural
lens for years,is extremely sharp and has all the coverage you are
likely to need. It is also the smallest of the 90mm wide angles and
takes 67mm filters. I use the 110XL as well, mine was a dud and had to
go back to Schneider to be fixed. It took several months but is OK
now. There have also been reports of faulty 80XLs as well. If you
choose an XL, make sure you can return it easily if it doesn't
perform.
I have used a lot of Fuji and Nikkor lenses over the years, and never
had a bad one. With an 8X loupe, the Nikkors snap into focus on the
GG. The XLs are ever so slightly soft at full aperture ( extremely
soft if you get a bad one) but sharpen up nicely by f11-16. This is
surprising, as one would think the aspheric design would produce razor
sharpness at full aperture. The XLs probably do have an edge in corner
sharpness, although they have more light fall off than conventional
wide angle designs.
Harold Clark
From: ashwood@eagle.ca (Harold Clark)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Schneider 120mm for a Wisner Technical Field???
Date: 6 May 2002
"Robert J. Wood" robert@robertjwood.net wrote...
> Greetings,
>
> I recently purchased a used Wisner Technical Field and am anxiously and
> eagerly searching for my first lense. Many have recommended a normal
> 150mm lense to start out with, and I can see the benifits of having such
> a lense. But I think I agree with Ansel Adams in his opion that the
> normal lense image is aesthetically inferior to those of slighty shorter
> or longer lenses. I'll be doing a bunch of landscape work, with some
> archetectural too and I don't want to feel suffocated by the format.
>
> Would any of you recommend the Schneider 120mm Apo-Symmar for my
> purposes?? It seems to be a reasonably priced and practical choice for
> my first large format lense.
>
> Can anyone give me tips on coverage issues as they relate to Wisners???
>
> Regards,
> Robert Wood
In my experience a focal length of 120 or 125mm gives a very pleasing
perspective, slightly wide angle ( like a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera )
but without the distortion that sometimes results with 90mm and wider
lenses. First determine how much coverage you are likely to need and
how much displacement
your camera will allow, then shop accordingly. Architectural
photography, especially in urban areas where space is limited, will
place most demands on available coverage. When you and your wallet are
ready, a 90mm would be an excellent choice on the wide end. I
personally have never liked a 150mm, I find a 180mm very useful
followed by a 240 Fuji/f9, an extremely compact lens. This is just my
opinion of course, others may differ. I do think though that a lot of
photographers would recommend the 120mm focal length.
Harold Clark
From: Drew Saunders dru@stanford.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Schneider 120mm for a Wisner Technical Field???
Date: Mon, 06 May 2002
"Robert J. Wood" robert@robertjwood.net wrote:
> Would any of you recommend the Schneider 120mm Apo-Symmar for my
> purposes?? It seems to be a reasonably priced and practical choice for
> my first large format lense.
I have one that I bought a few months ago to go with my Tachihara as my
first LF lens, although I took a LF class many years ago and used a 150,
this is the first LF lens I've owned (if you don't count a funky Fuju
process lens I got to be used as a really cool paperweight). Anyway, I
like it a lot and it works very well for my needs and greatly prefer it
over the 150 focal length. I've added a Nikkor 200/8 and the two are a
perfect combo for me.
> Can anyone give me tips on coverage issues as they relate to Wisners???
Since the Wisners have more movements than the Tachihara, you may want
to look at the Fuji 125/5.6, which has a larger image circle. I've found
that, in vertical format and wide open at maximum fall (the Tachi has
more fall than rise), I get a wee bit of vignetting with the Schneider,
but that stopping down even a little bit fixes that, and I don't really
use that much front fall in practice anyway. From Badger
From rollei mailing list:
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Another Optics question
you wrote:
>I get very unsharp corners when I use my Ensign camera, with a Ross Expres
>105/3,8, at full opening to 5,6. The sharpness is great when I stop down to
>11-16. What happens here, is it so that the "bad" performance of the lens
>gets better when I stop down, or is it just the depth of field that takes
>care of the problem? The Ross Expres lenses are said to be good, but maybe I
>have a bad example?
I've never had a Ross Expres to check out. It is similar to a Tessar but
has three cemented elements in the rear compenent.
From the patent data in Smith's book it is a pretty good lens.
Tessars have some uncorrected coma which makes the corners smeary looking
until they are stopped down. The f/4.5 Kodak Ektars lenses, which are
outstanding, have visible coma until stopped down to about f/8 and f/11 is
better. I have a Wollensak Raptar which has tons of coma and doesn't get
sharp at the corners until around f/22. I think this is a design error
rather than a manufacturing error but am not sure. So, f/11 is not an
outrageous stop for an f/5.6 lens. check the arial image at the corners, if
you can, using a good quality acromatic magnifier of about 10X. You should
see what is going on there. Look at the image of a small bright source, a
penlight or something of the sort. Coma looks like a radial smear in line
with the optical center. It can point toward or away from the center
depending on the way the lens is corrected. As you stop down you will see
the commet tail shorten and, eventually, go away.
From the patent data the lens is corrected for smallest blure spot size
and may have some focus shift.
BTW, the Wide Angle Express is an entirely different design; a Plasmat
type.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Roger Hein rogein@rogerhein.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: help with convertible lens
Date: Sat, 04 May 2002
gk wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have an older Calumet (Ilex) 215/360 convertible lens that I have been
> shooting for a couple of years now, but am wondering about something.
>
> I have been told that the "front" element needs to be removed to convert the
> lenes focal length. However, when I remove the front element, the lens will
> never properly focus. I know I have plenty of bellows to extend 360mm
> (Calumet CC 401). When I remove the "rear" element, I can focus sharply at
> infinity, and down to about ten feet or so.
>
> Am I correct in assuming that the "front" element is the one that is outside
> of the camera? The element with the lens info? Maybe the front element is
> actually the one inside the camera??? Pardon the ignorance, but my lens only
> works that one way....
>
> Thanks for any clarification.
> gk
You are correct - usually with 'convertibles' when using the single
elements alone the cell is placed behind the shutter for performance.
The downside is when this is done you will need more bellows extension
than the marked focal length - so your 14" may require about 16" just to
reach infinity focus. You *can* place the single cell on the front of
the shutter and it may perform fine depending on the size of format you
want to cover - doing so will require less extension than the marked
focal length.
Good Luck!
Cheers,
Roger...
Date: Fri, 03 May 2002
From: avrial@mindspring.com
To: Uptown Gallery murray@uptowngallery.org
Subject: [Cameramakers] Re: Metrogon
Hi,
I believe only the Aero Ektars had the radioactive glass........it
usually (the rear element) turns amber to light brown from the breakdown
of the radioactive material over time. I haven't heard of the metrogons
having used this type of glass.......but they could have. Do a search
for (radioactive and ektar ) there is some good information out there on
the net somewhere.
I have taken a few shots with the 6 in and 12in......the images are very
sharp. I think the reason you dont see more of these lenses used is
beacuse it is they are so difficult to mount in a shutter, as the
spacing between elements for the 6 in is only (.120) Mr. Grimes will do
it, but it aint cheap!!! So I use a waterhouse stop at f90 and the lens
cap as a shutter. Works great for landscapes providing the clouds aren't
moving too fast. Using the 6 in on an 8X10 is similar to using a 25 mm
lens on a 35 mm camera, nice wide field lens......but don't try any
movements as it JUST covers the format. Throw one in a lens board some
time and move it around a bit....you'll see what I mean. The 12 in is
reported to cover a 18 in image circle, so movements should be the
least of your worries with that one.
Make sure you use either the yellow, red or orange filter with the
metrogon series lenses. The filter is considered one of its 5 elements
in all the technical info Ive seen. www.surplusshack.com has the 6
in ones for @ $5.00 ea with the mounting ring. They also have other
large filters for different aerial lenses.
I've noticed some guy on ebay keeps buying their stuff in bulk and
selling it on ebay for a profit so you may want to get one soon if you
don't already have one. He bought out the last remaining 12 in
metrogons they had, an sold them recently.
Hope this helps,
Rob
Uptown Gallery wrote:
>I have a 153.2 mm f 6.3 Eastman Kodak Type I lens from 1955. It does not say
>Aero-Ektar and appears to be like the Metrogon in appearance.
>
>Do you know anything about the Kodak variation, and whether it's likely to
>have the radioacive glass like so many others?
>
>Murray
from russian camera mailing list
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002
From: Marc James Small msmall@infi.net
Subject: ISCO and JSK
Javier Perez wrote:
>
>Are ISCOs considered to be second rate with respect
>to Schneiders or on the same level. I've noticed that
>just about every ISCO has a Schneider counterpart.
Yes, in general, ISCO was considered to be of second-rate quality, though
the factory was started to manufacture the cutting edge of JSK lenses, such
as really advanced aerial recon lenses. But, after the War, Schneider had
the good stuff made at Bad Kreuznach and the more mundane stuff at
Gottingen. There ARE some good ISCO lenses, but I don't know which ones
fall into this category.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: ISCO and JSK
Marc James Small at msmall@infi.net wrote:
> There ARE some good ISCO lenses, but I don't know which ones
> fall into this category.
Today a lot of the professional motion picture projection lenses come
from ISCO, particularly the anamorphics.
Bob
From: ashwood@eagle.ca (Harold Clark)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 8x10 lens coverage
Date: 9 May 2002
"John Bast" jbast@bestweb.net wrote
> The 210 APO Symmar will not cover 8x10, but it won't miss by much. If you
> shoot at a lot less than infinity (ie: subjects less than 5-10 feet from the
> camera), then it probably will cover 8x10, but with very limited movements.
>
> -J
>
> "Mark" markwestling@cox.net wrote...
> > I have three lenses for my 4x5 and 5x7 cameras:
> >
> > Schneider 110mm XL
> > Schneider 210mm APO-Symmar
> > Fuji 450mm C
> >
> > I'm considering getting an 8x10. I know the 450 has gobs of coverage, but
> > can anyone tell me of their experiences using the 110 or 210 on 8x10?
> I've
> > been told that Schneider is extremely conservative in their lens coverage
> > statistics.
> >
> > I'd greatly appreciate hearing from someone with "real world" experience.
> >
> > Many thanks,
> >
> > Mark
> > MarkWestling@cox.net
Another solution would be to pick up a 210mm g claron in a barrel,
or better still a kowa graphic. These are pretty cheap now, I picked
up a couple for $30 each, although that is probably lower than
average. The elements can be screwed directly into your shutter. At
f45 the g claron will allow a good amount of movement on 8x10. The
corners will go softer at the extremes, but this is often not a
problem if the sky, for instance is in the corners of the frame. The
kowa is better still. I tested it on my deardorff 8x10 with 65mm of
front rise and it still covered. Sharpness fell off in the corners,
but it was noticeably better than the g claron.
Harold Clark
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 135mm Schneider vs. 135mm Rodenstock ALso, 120mm
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002
Robert J. Wood wrote:
> I've been gradually narrowing my search for a first lens for my Wisner
> TEchnical Field. With landscape and some architectural work as a main
> interest, Im trying to decided between a couple of 135mm lenses and a
> couple of 120mm.
>
> The Rodenstock 135mm Syronar-S seems to have a 30mm larger coverage
> diameter than the comparable Schneider 135mm Apo-Symmar. It's only $50
> dollars more than the Schneider at B&H; so this would be the logical
> choice, right?
Although I do recommend the APO Sironar-S in the 135mm focal length, you
may want to check your math. 135mm APO-Sironar-S IC = 208mm. 135mm APO
Symmar IC = 195mm. For a delta of 13mm. Still significant, but not as
dramatic of a difference as 30mm.
> Ideally, I'd get a 120mm though. 135mm seems too close to "normal" to
> be worth it, but I'm worried that affordable 120mm's wont have enough
> coverage for my Wisner. The Schneider 120mm Apo-Symmar has a coverage
> of 179mm. Having never actually used the camera before, I really don't
> have a feel for how small this is. (I know the surface area of a piece
> of 4x5 film, but still....movements are sometimes hard to visualize.)
> Anyhow, I'd love ANY thoughts on the matter that could help me make a
> decision. This will be my first and only lens for awhile. So knowing
> this, what would you suggest?
Assuming you have ruled out the wonderful, but expensive 110mm Super
Symmar XL (my personal favorite in this focal length range)... In the
120mm focal length, my first recommendation would be a used 120mm Super
Symmar HM (IC = 211mm). It was discontinued in the last couple years,
but used samples should be readily available. Prices also seem to have
come down quite a bit due to the popularity of its replacement, the
110mm Super Symmar XL. Second choice would be a 125mm Fujinon CM-W (IC
= 204mm). This lens is avilable new at a reasonable price, but I
haven't seen too many used ones for sale. Both of these lenses are
bigger and heavier than the 120mm APO Symmar, but offer substantially
more coverage. Compared to the larger f8 and f6.8 lenses, they are
significantly smaller and lighter. They do have considerably less
coverage, but are also brighter on the ground glass for focusing and
composing. I think either would be a good match for your Wisner.
For further comments see:
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm
Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann - Large Format Images of Nature
http://www.thalmann.com/
Kerry's Large Format Homepage
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/
From: p2macgahan@compuserve.com (P. MacGahan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 8x10 lens coverage
Date: 9 May 2002
Erik Ryberg ryberg@seanet.com wrote
> Mark wrote:
> >
> > I have three lenses for my 4x5 and 5x7 cameras:
> >
> > Schneider 110mm XL
> > Schneider 210mm APO-Symmar
> > Fuji 450mm C
> >
> > I'm considering getting an 8x10. I know the 450 has gobs of coverage, but
> > can anyone tell me of their experiences using the 110 or 210 on 8x10?
>
> Mark,
>
> I did this experiment with my 8x10 camera and my friend's 110 XL a few
> weeks ago. At infinity, at f32, the 110XL just covers the corners. But
> when you add the center filter, it vignettes. So, this is not an ideal
> 8x10 lens. However, you can crop the top and bottom a little bit, and
> if you are shooting straight on, get an amazingly wide view.
>
> It would make an outstanding 4x10 lens.
>
> I have no experience with the 210 Apo-Symmar.
>
> Erik Ryberg
Results of an actual test are always interesting. I haven't tried
either lens, but am interested and have talked with some who claim to
know.
The most basic source I tried was the Schneider rep. at Photokina
2000. He assured me that the 110XL covers 8x10. I drew his attention
to his brochure that proclaim the image circle as 288mm in diameter
and after fumbling a bit didn't seem to know what to say. Others,
selling 8x10 cameras claimed to have used the lens for 8x10 with
excellent results. The current schneider web site
shows the coverage as either 288mm or 290mm or some other number in
between. This is the same claim as used to be made for the Super
Angulon 121 mm. (the Schneider site now shows it as 290 at f:22). It
was at best a difficult lens to use on 8x10.
The next question is, what covers 8x10? I have taken 310mm as
acceptable (but just barely). If you can accept less than true
infinity focus (the hyperfocal distance at f:22, for example) you
might take a little less.
By contrast, the Schneider site shows the coverage of the Apo Symmar
as about 305 mm. at f:22. It also says that it is improved from the
Symmar and now covers 72 degrees (which is just what the Symmar used
to claim, but did not cover 8x10). My calculation shows that I need
about 74 degrees to actually cover 8x10 and the 72 is a little short.
Again, if you can give up infinity focus or not use the corners you
can accept less, but then there isn't any perspective correction.
Manufacturers claims are also interesting, but I prefer actual tests.
It is really appreciated when someone post their observations, even
about a single lens. Thank you.
From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Resolution: Digital vs Film
Date: 18 May 2002
...
Large format leses are *slow*, so your figures are unrealistic. An
f/5.6 plasmat-type large format lens used wide-open might reach 300
lp/mm in monochromatic light in a very narrow area near the optical
axis, but the vast majority of large format lenses are not fully
diffraction-limited over the entire image area even at f/22. At f/22
you can't resolve beyond about 70 lp/mm.
Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com
From: "Andrew Eads" aceads@owt.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lens and screen for architecture?
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002
David,
I use a Calumet/Ilex 90mm f/8 wide field and a 65mm Nikkor. When I am
having trouble seeing into the corners, I aim a Lowel TotaLight into the
dark areas. The purpose is simply to put enough photons into the scene to
make it easier to compose and focus. Any bright lamp will do the trick.
Andy
aceads@3-cities.com
From: "Stanley K. Patz" skp113@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Rodenstock Ysarex Lens question
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002
dr bob wrote:
>This lens is a rather well respected "Tessar" design used mainly on the
>better Polaroid "large-format" cameras in the '60s+. I use one almost
>exactly as you describe on a Speed Graphic Pathfinder. It works well with
>the limited movements of the Speed 4x5 but better with the roll film adapter
>(rarely used). The images are quite sharp. The biggest disadvantage I find
>is the lack of a "Time" setting on my shutter. To use the ground glass, one
>has to employ a locking cable release. I would like to obtain a more modern
>lens but this one does a yeoman's job.
>
>Truly, dr bob.
>"Namexa" namexa2plug@home.net wrote...
>
>>Hello,
>>I came across a Rodenstock Ysarex f4.7 127mm with a Prontor-svs shutter.
>It is labeled 'Pathfinder Land Camera 110A.' Can anyone point me to or give me
>>info on this lens, i.e. quality, performance coverage etc? I am assuming it
>>(and the 110A) was one of the 60's Polaroid folders since it does have an
>>'x' sync position. Probably not good for 4x5 work but might do OK for roll
>>film. Thanks to all who reply.
>>Mike Darr
>>Namexa Images
To the group,
Hmmm, this may be a late response to these posts.
I recently tested a a 127mm Ysarex against a "legendary" Kodak Ektar of
the same focal length and design. The Ysarex came out on top. The lens
came from a copy set-up and the Polaroid self-cocking shutter with the
modern speed sequence was better than the Ektar's older Supermatic.
Stan Patz
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Rodenstock Ysarex Lens question
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002
"Stanley K. Patz" skp113@hotmail.com wrote:
>dr bob wrote:
>
>>This lens is a rather well respected "Tessar" design used mainly on the
>>better Polaroid "large-format" cameras in the '60s+. I use one almost
>>exactly as you describe on a Speed Graphic Pathfinder. It works well with
>>the limited movements of the Speed 4x5 but better with the roll film adapter
>>(rarely used). The images are quite sharp. The biggest disadvantage I find
>>is the lack of a "Time" setting on my shutter. To use the ground glass, one
>>has to employ a locking cable release. I would like to obtain a more modern
>>lens but this one does a yeoman's job.
>>
>>Truly, dr bob.
>>"Namexa" namexa2plug@home.net wrote
>>>Hello,
>>>I came across a Rodenstock Ysarex f4.7 127mm with a Prontor-svs shutter.
>>>It is labeled 'Pathfinder Land Camera 110A.' Can anyone point me to or give me
>>>info on this lens, i.e. quality, performance coverage etc? I am assuming it
>>>(and the 110A) was one of the 60's Polaroid folders since it does have an
>>>'x' sync position. Probably not good for 4x5 work but might do OK for roll
>>>film. Thanks to all who reply.
...
>To the group,
>
>Hmmm, this may be a late response to these posts.
>
>I recently tested a a 127mm Ysarex against a "legendary" Kodak Ektar of
>the same focal length and design. The Ysarex came out on top. The lens
>came from a copy ste-up and the Polaroid self-cocking shutter with the
>modern speed sequence was better than the Ektar's older Supermatic.
>
>Stan Patz
This is interesting. I would be glad to know the details of the
testing. The 127mm f/4.7 Ektar is an excellent lens. Anything
noticably better has to be outstanding, so I am interested. Polaroid
also used Ektars on their top of the line cameras. I suspect the
Rodenstock lenses were used when Kodak became unavailable.
Rodenstock was always a quality brand. Late Graphic Optar lenes
were Rodenstock tessar types, probably rebranded Ysarex or Ysar
lenses. (These are marked Made in Germany and may also Rodenstock
them. Found on Super Graphics and late top rangefinder Pacemakers.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Stanley K. Patz" skp113@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Rodenstock Ysarex Lens question
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002
To Richard and the group,
I am quite fond of the 127mm Ektar. Back in the early '70s, I was
shooting the Selchow-Righter catalog - board games like Scrabble. The
merchandise looked so boring until I got in closer and used the little
Ektar. That slight "wide-angle" look was very successful.
Anyhow, the tests I made were fairly simple, just BW photos of a few
newspaper spreads (from the financial section). I used both the lenses
at about 8' at a few apertures.
I will not say this was a definitive tests, since we both know there can
be variations from unit to unit. And it was on BW film. I looked for
sharpness at center and corners. Any lens flaws, chromatic or otherwise
shows up as mushiness.
The Ysarex was a little bit better than the Ektar. But why not? It
supposedly is the same formula type with the advantage of newer glass
and coating. Anyhow, I wanted the Ysarex to come out on top because of
the modern shutter speeds..1/4, 1/8, 1/15 etc.
From: largformat@aol.com (Largformat)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 24 May 2002
Subject: Re: large format trade show
Yup, they're still at it. In fact, a couple of years ago I was
contacted by someone at TT&H; about the possible market for the old
Cooke soft focus lens. Maybe they decided to make some.
In the May/June 02 issue of View Camera there is a history of Cooke lenes and
an announcement of a new lens from them. The new lens will be premiered at the
large formnat trade show.
steve simmons
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: What is a barrel lens?
you wrote:
> Hi Large format gurus, What is a barrel lens and how hard is it to mount
> on a shutter? of a barrel lens? Thanks
A barrel mounted lens is a lens without a shutter. Its mounted in a
barrel with an iris diaphragm much like the lenses for a Rollei SLR. For
large format use there is no focusing means as part of the lens.
The advantage originally was cost and the fact that some lenses were too
big for any existing regular shutters. In the case of process lenses
exposure was controlled by means other than a lens mounted shutter.
They are used with some sort of external shutter, the simplest being a
lens cap.
Barrel lenses can be remounted onto shutters but its expensive. A few
more modern ones will siimply thread into a modern shutter, but in most
instances machining will be required.
A simpler method is to use something like a Packard shutter, a simple (I
seem to be using that word a lot) air operated shutter having one speed and
bulb. A more versitile method is to make an adaptor for a large leaf
shutter allowing smaller lens boards to be mounted to its front. Then any
barrel lens up to the clear diameter of the shutter can be used on it. The
diaphragm of the shutter is not used, it doesn't even have to have one
One can use a Packard shutter this way too but a large Ilex Universal, or
somethign similar, will give some range of speeds and flash synch. Such a
shutter could also be equipped with an iris lens clamp eliminating the need
for separate lens boards for each lens. I have a #5 Ilex Universal which
takes 5-1/4 x 5-1/4 lens boards but have an iris clamp on one board. That
is handy for using, for instance, enlarger lenses turned around backward
for micro work.
If one has a camera with a built-in focal plane shutter, like a Speed
Graphic, its necessary only to mount the barrel lens on a regular lens
board for use. Some of the lenses supplied for use on Speed Graphics, such
as the Wollensak telephoto lenses, are barrel mount lenses.
The Wollensak Raptar/Optar telephoto lens is an example of a lens which
will mount directly on a shutter. The cells of the 15" lens will mount
directly on a #4 Alphax, with correct inter-cell spacing. This is not the
case for all lenses, in fact most use different cells for barrels and for
shutters.
Because many people don't know how easy it is to use barrel lenses they
often go begging.
Some of these lenses are suitable for use on SLR cameras with focal plane
shutters like the Rollei with the addition of an adaptor and probably
extension tubes where the focal length is long.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Donn Cave" donn@drizzle.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Caltar II-E 210mm f/6.8
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002
Quoth Chase Williams cwilliams@spring.net:
| Thanks for the testimony. I discovered that it is the equivalent of a
| Rodenstock Geronar, that is a pretty good bang for the buck.
| Another question for the experienced:
| How is this lens at focusing close (with a 4x5 camera?)
| 90% of my work is landscape and streetscapes. I also do a little bit
| of closeups of small objects and portraits in studio. I have an old
| Kodak Ektar 203mm 7.7 lens, that does not focus close at all. I do a
| much better job of this with my 135mm Caltar II-N 5.6 even.
| I realize that the technology is not up to par with the more expensive
| lenses, but will the Caltar II-E 210mm lens focus close enough for
| small objects (like baseball or softball size) to take up a large
| portion of a 4x5 neg?
Unless some misfortune has compromised your 203mm f7.7 Ektar,
I would keep it and save the money on the IIe. There's a good
possibility the Ektar is optically the same or better, both close
and at infinity. The only sure advantage to the IIe is that it's
multi-coated, so the Ektar, with a couple more air surfaces and
only single coated, will render a little less contrast (or whatever
we call that, contrast seems to mean a couple different things.)
And it could have a better shutter.
Your close focus problem will be the same with any lens of
that approximate length, including this one. Are you running
out of bellows extension? If it's something like that, you'll
just want to use a shorter lens like your 135mm (and I would
stay away from the 150mm IIe, as it has very limited coverage.)
Donn
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: help using Ektar 203mm 7.7 with Shen-Hao 4x5!
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002
Chase Williams cwilliams@spring.net wrote:
>In a previous post, I asked about the close up abilities of a $349
>Caltar II-E 210mm f/6.8, since my first try with an old Ektar 203mm
>7.7 couldn't focus close up with my new Shen Hao 4x5. After Jeff
>indicated that he had no trouble doing this, I took it outside
>yesterday and discovered that I could not focus on ANYTHING near or
>far (not even infinity.) My Rodenstock 135mm 5.6 Sironar N does it
>all beautifully. Is there a problem with this particular Ektar (which
>works with a Bender 4x5), or does my Shen Hao not have the bellows to
>handle it? Also, if I get the Caltar II-E 210mm f/6.8, will I have the
>same problem?
>Thanks for the help!
>-Chase
This is a little odd. There is nothing exotic about the 203mm
Ektar. It should focus at infinity when the diaphragm is a little more
than 203mm from the ground glass.
Check the lens visually to see if you can spot any damage.
Try focusing the lens off the camera to see if it forms an image at
any distance.
If it works on another camera it should work on this one unless the
bellows draw is way off. That sounds unlikely.
The 203mm Ektar is optimised for infinity focus but works well down
to 1:1 when stopped down a little.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: bg174@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Gudzinowicz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Apo Process lenses used at "infinite" distances
Date: 17 Jun 2002
"Graphic" graphic99@mindspring.com wrote:
> The little bit that I remember reading about Apochromatic process lenses for
> large format is that they are:
>
> 1. Corrected for 1:1 reproductions (unlike the 35mm lenses designated APO
> that are designed for general use [ read that "distances up to and including
> infinity"] )
> 2. Are *extremely* well color corrected and much less likely to suffer poor
> resolution from chromatic aberrations *and* diffraction (note: many of
> theses Apo's have stops down to F90 or F128 or even F256)
> 3. Have very limited circle of coverage compared to general use LF lenses of
> the same focal length.
> MY QUESTION: If I am offered one of these LF Apo lenses at a bargain
> basement price and try to bellows mount one on a focal plane-shuttered MF
> camera, will I see excellent results at moderate distances ( 10 - 20 feet)
> or even infinity focus, compared to standard lenses or will this be an
> excercise in futility compared to using general-purpose optics?
It is very likely that the performance will not be as good as a contemporary
medium format lens.
Most process lenses rely on symmetrical groups to correct distortion, coma
and lateral color. As one moves away from 1:1 magnification, the ray paths
through the front and rear cells differ, and optimization is diminished.
The degree of the problem depends on lens design, and quality control. Many
old lenses vary markedly in performance, and few are stellar performers if
one is looking for an 8X enlargement when used near infinity focus. The
primary concerns for process lens use are freedom from distortion and
freedom from lateral color so separations align. "Sharpness" in the sense
of high resolution and contrast demanded by 35 mm and MF photography aren't
as important per se when the ultimate product is a printing plate. The
lenses are excellent for what they are intended to do, and may be fine for
general large format photography. They won't equal a well designed MF tele
or 35 mm lens when used for distant subjects. The better contemporary
APO LF lenses of equal focal length optimized for 1:10 or 1:20 will outperform
the process lenses, but that may or may not be visible in prints depending
upon circumstances.
Also, most of the process lens designs were meant to be used at
an aperture of f/22 or effective aperture of f/45 at 1:1 magnification.
An aperture of f/256 may actually be the US designation for f/64,
which would indicate an older lens. The sequence of values should
provide a clue. However, process lenses suffer from diffraction to the
same degree as other lenses - their design doesn't avoid that problem.
There are ways to minimize diffraction effects, but they aren't
implemented with those lenses.
Since the objects photographed by process lenses are low contrast, the
lenses are often single coated and rarely, multicoated.
If you want to experiment, buy a good coated lens (G-Claron, APO Nikkor,
APO Fujinon, APO Artar) at a bargain price, and mount it on black PVC tubing
or a "box" connected to the camera with a provision for focusing. A bed may
be required to mount both camera and lens. The lens must be perpendicular to
the axis of the tube, or the plane of focus will be tilted. The results
won't be as good as a modern SLR with a long system lens (Hassy, Rollei,
Pentax, etc.) but they might be acceptable if the process lens is in good
condition and of recent vintage.
From: "Gene Johnson" genej2@cox.net
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Another Interesting Combination
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002
Hi All,
Earthmother's posts inspired me to find an Alphax shutter from a scope
camera for 20 bucks. I had to clean it to get it to work, but it does now
work fine. I have tried it at the front and rear of a 7 inch f2.5 Aero
Ektar. On a lens this fast with huge elements, I definitely get less
vignetting with the shutter on the front. I cannot get the lens to cover
4x5 either way, but I can cover 6x7 both ways. At first, I was disapointed
at not being able to shoot 4x5 with it this way, but considering I have so
little invested in the shutter, it still seems like quite a bargain.
Additionally, I can still easily use the AE without the shutter for time
exposures. I made the mini shutter-board easy to install and remove using
the bayonet pins on the lens housing. This way, I can compose at f2.5 which
is really nice in low light, then pop the shutter in to take the shot. All
in all, a good deal for 20 bucks.
Gene
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Ektar 101mm on 4X5? Image circle...?
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002
choiliefan@aol.com (Choiliefan) wrote:
>I know the Kodak 101mm is for maximum 6x9 cm use but has anyone here used one
>on a 4x5" body? Curious as to the wide angle coverage and/or image circle,
>light fall off, etc.
>Thanks in advance,
>Lance
I wouldn't have believed it but I just tried it. The lens covers!
But, it should be stopped down to f/22 to get the corners sharp and
avoid mechanical vignetting.
Fall off will be the same as any standard type lens at this angle,
cos^4 theta, where theta is the half-angle of the image point. The
half angle is around 37 degrees to the light will be 0.4 x the value
at the center of the image, a little over one stop loss.
A Tessar type lens with nearly 75 degree coverage is quite
remarkable.
Supposedly, the 101mm and 127mm Ektars are the best of this
outstanding series (of about f/4.5 lenses).
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Apo Process lenses used at "infinite" distances
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002
"Graphic" graphic99@mindspring.com wrote:
>The little bit that I remember reading about Apochromatic process lenses for
>large format is that they are:
>
>1. Corrected for 1:1 reproductions (unlike the 35mm lenses designated APO
>that are designed for general use [ read that "distances up to and including
>infinity"] )
>2. Are *extremely* well color corrected and much less likely to suffer poor
>resolution from chromatic aberrations *and* diffraction (note: many of
>theses Apo's have stops down to F90 or F128 or even F256)
>3. Have very limited circle of coverage compared to general use LF lenses of
>the same focal length.
>
>MY QUESTION: If I am offered one of these LF Apo lenses at a bargain
>basement price and try to bellows mount one on a focal plane-shuttered MF
>camera, will I see excellent results at moderate distances ( 10 - 20 feet)
>or even infinity focus, compared to standard lenses or will this be an
>excercise in futility compared to using general-purpose optics?
>
>TIA
>Wayne
>graphic99@mindspring.com
This thread has been pretty well discussed but I think a couple of
clearifications are in order.
First, "apochromatic" refers to the correction of chromatic
aberration in a way that brings three wavelengths (or colors if you
prefer) of light to a common focus. Most lenses are achromatic,
meaning two colors are brought to common focus. The correction is by
means of the types of optical glass used in making the lens.
An apochromatic lens is not necessarily better than an achromatic
one. The measure is the deviation from ideal focus across the
spectrum. Its possible to design achromats with very little deviation
at any wavelength although the exact focus will be achieved at only
two wavelengths. Most modern LF "APO" lenses are actually achromats,
and I have had a long running discussion here with one of the lens
reps about the legitimacy of this terminology.
Apochromatic process lenses are true apochromats. They are intended
for copy work where images of three colors must be brought to both a
common focus and be of the same size. The first is obtained by the use
of the right glass types, the second, usually by the use of a
symmetrical design, although lateral color can be corrected in
un-symmetrical lenses (Kodak Commercial Ektar).
Typically, these lenses are very slow (f/9 or less). The slowness is
helpful in general correction of aberrations.
A lens can be fully corrected for a couple of the primary
aberrations at only one object distance. At other distances some of
the correction is lost and lens performance becomes worse. The key is
the angle the light rays take through the lens. The correction is
right only for a particular set of angles. At other angles the light
rays go through at some other angle. Depending on the lens design the
effect can be very small or quite large. Older process lenses are
simple (four elements) and slow. The light angles inside the lens are
a minimum to begin with so change in object distance has relatively
little effect. As a rule, the faster the lens or the wider angle the
lens, the greater is the change in ray angles with change in object
distance, hense the greater the change in the correction.
Most process lenses are optimised in design for equal object and
image distances, equivalent to saying equal object object and image
size, often called 1:1. A completely symmetrical lens operating this
way has no geometical distortion, coma, or lateral color (the last is
the variation in magnification, or image size, with color). Generally,
for these simple lenses these corrections stay pretty good out to
infinty focus but won't meet the requirements for the lens's original
purpose beyond about 1:5 to 5:1.
Camera lenses, whether apochromatic or achromatic, are optimised for
infinity object distance. The corrections are actually harder to make
since the symmetry of the object and image no longer exist.
Nonetheless, lenses with an extremely high degree of correction can
and are made.
Again, the correction varies with object distance. For a typical
medium speed camera lens the corrections stay pretty close to optimum
down to maybe five to ten focal lengths. High speed lenses may begin
to show some degradation from being away from the optimum "conjugate"
(ratio of image to object distance) at as much as twenty focal
lengths.
Coma and spherical aberration, which are the two which are most
sensitive to object distance, are proportional to stop size, so can be
reduced, within limits, by stopping down.
Diffraction, mentioned in the original post, is not affected by lens
design. It is a fundamental property of the stop itself. The amount of
diffraction produced by the stop, and the limit to lens resolution, is
dependant solely on the size of the stop, and is the same for all
lenses at the same stop.
Practical lenses are not perfectly corrected, so, there is some
"optimum stop" where the improvement in the image quality from
stopping meets the degradation in image quallity from increasing
diffraction. This optimum is not a constant but varies with the
desired image angle. The wider then angle, the smaller the stop, and
the lower the overall image quality, everyting else being equal.
A lens with better correction will have a larger optimum stop than a
poorer lens. A few lenses have their best performance wide open _neary
the center of the image_. For most lenses, the optimum is around two
to three stops down from maximum.
At 1:1 the stop is magnified to double its value, i.e., what is
marked as f/8 acts like its actually f/16. This not only cuts the
light down but magnifies the effect of diffraction to the resolution
limit due to diffraction is the same as if a lens focused in infinity
was set at f/16.
In summary:
Process lenses are optimised for 1:1 or near it.
Lenses optimised for 1:1 can have very good performance at infinty
focus, but dependant on the design of the lens.
Apochromatic referes to the color correction, not to an optimum object
distance. Apochromatic lenses can be (and are) designed for all sorts
of applications.
Diffraction is a physical property of the lens and is not dependant on
lens design or optimisation.
In direct answer to your question, a very good process lens like the
Red Dot Apochromatic Artar, will work well at infinty focus but a lens
carefully designed for infinity focus will be superior, perhaps only
in being able to operate at larger stops.
When long focus lenses are made for smaller formats the design
procedure is a little diferent since the lens is not required to cover
a large angle. This allows either superior correction, higher speed,
or simpler and cheaper construction for a given level of performance
compared to a lens which must cover a larger angle. While a long focus
process lens may be surprisingly good as a small or medium format lens
it will probably be inferior to a lens designed specifically for the
purpose.
BTW, I have made blow-ups from 35mm frame sized segments of 8x10's
shot with a very old uncoated Apochromatic Artar. The sharpness is
quite stunning. The biggest problem is vibration, always a problem
with large cameras.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: bg174@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Gudzinowicz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Apo Process lenses used at "infinite" distances
Date: 18 Jun 2002
click76112@charter.net wrote:
> I concur. I have had several Red Dot Artars straight from a process
> cameras and they perform excellently. I currently have a 305 mm G-Clarion
> in a Copal #1 that is one of the best lenses I have ever owned.
>
> lee
The original poster asked if bellows mounted process lenses
adapted to a medium format focal plane shutter camera would give
excellent results compared to "standard" medium format lenses.
Which medium format system lenses were compared to the Red Dot
Artars and G-Claron used on the same or similar format or
LF negative cropped to MF (6x6 or 6x7)?
I compared my Schneider 360 f/9 and 480 f/11 APO Artars on a
Deardorff with a 4x5 and 6x7 back to my old Hassy/Zeiss 350 mm
and 500 mm lenses used on the SLR to see if I could use the
LF system as a substitute in a pinch. The difference in chromes
and 8X prints was obvious. Admittedly, I didn't use a focal
plane camera such as a Pentax 67, Bronica, or Rolleiflex SL66
for the comparision, but I don't think that would matter very
much.
Same question to Arthur and Steve - which medium format system
standard lenses (10" & 12" / 250 mm & 300 mm) were used for the
side-by-side comparisons at the best apertures for each?
> "ArtKramr" artkramr@aol.com wrote
> > >Subject: Re: Apo Process lenses used at "infinite" distances
> > >From: "Steve Grimes" skgrimes@skgrimes.com
> > >Date: 6/17/02
> > >I predict you will see excellent results at all distances, including
> > >infinity,
> > >
> > >SKG
> > >
> > >--
> > > S.K. GRIMES -- MACHINE WORK FOR PHOTOGRAPHERS
> > > 153 Hamlet Ave. (5th floor) Woonsocket RI, 02895
> >
> > Absolutely correct. Both my 12" Apo Artar and my 10" Apo Nikkor
> > are superb at all distances including infinity. We must never
> > confuse the theory with the practice.
> >
> > Arthur Kramer
> > Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> > http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Question about Wollensak Velostigmat Lens
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002
"John Hannon" jjhannon@attbi.com wrote:
>I have been using a Wollensak Velostigmat Series II lens (f4.5 7 1/2"). I
>notice the lens has the word "Focus" also on it. Any reason for the focus
>designation? It does not seem to have an outer ring for adjustable soft
>focus.
>
>Just curious, it seems to be very sharp.
>
>Regards,
>John Hannon
The Series II Velostigmat is a Tessar type lens.
Velostigmat was Wollensak's general trade-name for many years. They
made several different types of lenses under that name, the Series
number indicating the specific kind. Quality is variable but the
company was capable of making excellent lenses.
After about 1946 the Velostigmat name was dropped in favor of Raptar.
I don't know what the "focus" means, where exactly is it printed on
the lens?
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Question about Wollensak Velostigmat Lens
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002
"Ken Burns" joe@blow.com wrote:
>
>"John Hannon" jjhannon@attbi.com wrote
>> I have been using a Wollensak Velostigmat Series II lens (f4.5 7 1/2"). I
>> notice the lens has the word "Focus" also on it. Any reason for the focus
>> designation? It does not seem to have an outer ring for adjustable soft
>> focus.
>>
>> Just curious, it seems to be very sharp.
>>
>> Regards,
>> John Hannon
>
>I too have one of those lenses. What it actually says is "7 1/2" Focus",
>meaning that it is a 7 1/2" focal length lens.
>
>KB
The original poster cleared up the location of the word via e-mail.
I thought it meant focal length but wanted to make sure it was on the
retaining ring and not somewhere else.
I have a 8-1/4, f/4.5 Velostigmat which is an excellent lens, as is
the Wollensak made Optar in my Super-D Graflex. However, I've
encountered several Wollensak dogs. The Enlarging Raptar series seems
to be uniformly awful.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002
From: "Francis A. Miniter" miniter@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Differences of Ektar, Commercial, and, WA
Hi Jeff,
This is from the Kodak Data Book "Kodak Lenses, Shutters and Portra Lenses
(3rd Ed. 1948):
p. 50 re Kodak Ektar Lenses 101 mm f/4.5; 127 f/4.7; 152 mm f/4.5
"These lenses make available to users of small and medium-size press
cameras the optical pre-eminence represented by Kodak Ektar lenses. Their
ability to meet most exacting requirements in black-and-white and color
photography is well known. All of these lenses are Lumenized.
"They produce definition of exceptional quality over the areas they are
designed to cover at all apertures and all working distances from infinity
to about four focal lengths from the lens. At this distance the image
produced is one-third the size of the subject. When a shorter
lens-to-subject distance is used, it is advisable to stop the lens below
maximum aperture, particularly for work demanding critical definition."
p. 53 re Kodak Wide Field Ektar Lenses, 80 mm f/6.3; 100 mm f/6.3; 135 mm
f/6.3; 190 mm f/6.3; 250 mm f/6.3
"Covering more than twice the area of good definition obtainable with
lenses of conventional design, Kodak Wide Field Ektar Lenses, f/ 6.3, are
especially useful for press photography, architectural photography, and
similar work in which wider than normal coverage is desirable. They are
not, however, "special purpose" lenses, since their versatile performance
makes them suitable for all types of photography. As a result of careful
design and precision manufacture, Kodak Wide Field Ektar Lenses, f/6.3,
show no distortion; preserve flatness of field, even at 1 to 1
magnification; and have no significant shit in focus with change in
aperture. In addition, lateral color has been completely eliminated,
making possible the perfect registration of color-separation negatives made
with these lenses. Kodak Wide Field Ektar Lenses are Lumenized and are
supplied in flash shutters. At very short subject distances, it is
advisable to use the lens at reduced openings when the work to be done is
of an exacting nature. Best definition is obtained at f/11 or smaller
diaphragm openings."
p. 57 re Kodak Commercial Ektar Lenses 81/2-inch f/6.3; 10-inch f/6.3;
12-inch f/6.3; 14-inch f/6.3
"These lenses meet the most critical requirements in color photography and
are recommended for making exposures with Kodak color sheet films or for
making color-separation negatives. It follows, therefore, that they are
also suitable for black-and-white picture taking. They are not recommended
for enlarging or projection printing. When the lenses are used at maximum
aperture, the image size on the ground glass should not be larger than
about one-third the subject size. At small apertures, they perform
satisfactorily even at lens-to-subject distances giving an image size of
about 1 to 1.
"The Kodak Commercial Ektar Lenses are exceedingly well corrected for lens
aberrations, such as coma, astigmatism, curvature of field, and spherical
and chromatic aberration both lateral and longitudinal. The lenses are
Lumenized."
Lumenized was a kodak term for "coated".
Francis A. Miniter
Jeff Novick wrote:
> Can anyone put forth the basic differences between these 3 issues from
> Kodak? I know this has been posted before but can't remember the info.
>
> TIA,
>
> Jeff
From: "Bruce Grant" bgrant@mbcnet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Differences of Ektar, Commercial, and, WA
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002
The 8 1/2" (215mm) Commercial Ektar was a particular beauty. Only slightly
bigger in diameter than a quarter (8.5/6.3=1.39) it was highly corrected and
sharp as hell. (Though, at f/6.3, its image was somewhat dim. They were
typically used for studio work under bright lighting, but will also work in
the field, especially if you fit your ground glass with a Fresnel image
intensifier.) Originally sold as a normal lens for 5x7, it will actually
cover 8x10 with a little bit of movement. As a moderately long lens for 4x5
(roughly equivalent to a 70mm lens for 35mm work) there's almost no limit to
the movements you can put on. Oddly enough, these little honeys often go
surprisingly cheaply, perhaps because their small size makes them look
relatively unimpressive. (One is currently up for auction on eBay, with the
bidding only up to $132.50, as of 6/20/02.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item;=1360256530)
--
Bruce Grant
bruce@wellsgrant.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Differences of Ektar, Commercial, and, WA
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002
"Jeff Novick" jhnovick@pacbell.net wrote:
>Can anyone put forth the basic differences between these 3 issues from
>Kodak? I know this has been posted before but can't remember the info.
>
>TIA,
>
>Jeff
"Ektar" was used by Kodak for its premium lenses beginning about
1935. Ektar lenses are of many different generic designs.
The Commercial Ektar is a series of f/6.3 Tessar type lenses
designed to a very high standard of correction. A previous version of
these lenses, called Eastman Ektars, appeared in the early 1940's.
They are of the same design but have soft coatings on protected inside
surfaces. The Commercial Ektar is hard coated on all surfaces.
These lenses are nearly apochromatic in color correction and were
intended to help sell Kodachrome film.
Coverage is similar to other Tessars of this speed, about 65 degrees
when stopped down to f/22. They will actually covera somewhat larger
angle.
The f/4.5 Ektar series were intended for press cameras and small
view cameras. They are also Tessar type lenses. They are corrected to
the same standard as the Commercial Ektar but have somewhat smaller
coverage. The 127mm lens is limited to f/4.7 by the available shutter.
Although these lenses should not have coverage beyond about 60
degrees they actually can cover considerably more when stopped down.
The 203mm, f/7.7 Ektar is a four element air spaced "dialyte" type.
Its design is similar, if not identican with the #70 Kodak Anastigmat
fo the same focal length. The KA is not coated, the Ektar is coated.
These lenses are extremely sharp, have good color correction and hold
their corrections well to 1:1. They are rather limited in coverage, as
is typical of this generic design. Probably no more than about 57
degrees. The coverage does not become much larger when stopped down.
The 203mm, f/7.7 was sold as a low cost lens for 4x5 and 5x7 view
cameras, where the superior performance of a Commercial Ektar could
not be justified.
The Wide Field Ektar is a four element air spaced design based on
the Gauss double lens. There are other wide angle lenses based on this
generic design, the Meyer Aristostigmat, for example. These are called
wide field lenses by Kodak rather than wide angle because their
coverage is limited to perhaps 80deg or 85deg. A true wide angle is
probably 90 deg or more.
Again, these lenses are exceptionally well corrected for color and
for general aberrations.
I should also mention the 105mm, f/3.7 Ektar. This is a lens which
originated in the mid 1940's replacing a previous lens of similar
focal length and speed, but of a different design. It is generically
of the Heliar type but the designer claims in his patent to have used
the extra element strictly for better chromatic correction.
This lens is part of a series of Heliar types produced by Kodak. The
Enlarging Ektar series, the lens in the Medalist camera, and the
lenses produced by Kodak for the early Hasselblad camera are all of
this design. They are excellent lenses. The coverage is about the same
as for a similar Tessar (the Heliar does not have a particularly wide
coverage angle) but can be of higher speed.
The earlier Ektar of this focal length (and also 107mm) is a Tessar
with reversed order of power in the cemented rear element. The
designer (Aklin?) states that this arrangement is superior when very
high index glass is employed. However, for whatever reason, the design
was dropped quickly in favor of the Heliar version.
Kodak lenses, at least during the time Rudolf Kingslake was in
charge of the optical department, are the equal or superior of any
made anywhere. They were exceptionally well designed and manufactured
with excellent QC. The Best of these will hold their own with modern
glass.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Brian Ellis" bellis60@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wide Angle lens for 8x10?
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002
In this range I use the Schneider G Claron 210 and it's an outstanding
moderate wide angle 8x10 lens for a relatively small amount of money,
especially when purchased from Robert White. I don't know about the
continued availability of this lens since Schneider has disontinued the G
Claron line (I think) but some dealers may have them still in stock and/or
it shouldn't be difficult to find one used.
"Mark" MarkWestling@cox.net wrote
> I'm currently considering buying an 8x10 to supplement my 4x5. I have a
> Fuji 450mm f/12.5 lens that I plan to use on both formats.
>
> Does anyone have a recommendation for a lens in the 200-270mm range that
> covers 8x10 nicely without weighing 5lbs? (like the Schneider 210mm XL)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
From: p2macgahan@compuserve.com (P. MacGahan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wide Angle lens for 8x10?
Date: 21 Jun 2002
There are quite a few. Most of these while smaller are older and only
available used. Buy with care and test before relinquishing any rights
to return the lens. An important reason is simply that lenses vary, and
testing is always a good idea. With used lenses there is also the issue
that you are buying what someone else is discarding (well, unless is
was stolen, but that could be even worse). You also don't know how it
was treated. In fact, you really can't be sure that you have what the
manufacturer intended, without some degree of care; something might have
been substituted. Realize also that some of them are either not coated
or are only single coated, and you may need to use some sort of
sunshade.
The 210 Angulon covers pretty well. Actually, a 165 mm Angulon will cover,
sort of, and they can be good. The 8 1/4" Dagor and the 9 1/2" Dagor will,
the 250WF Ektar, the 6 1/2" Wollensak, wide angle lens will. The Schneider
Symmar, Rodenstock Sironar and the Nikon W in 240mm will. The f:6.3 Computar
Symmetrigon 210mm (just barely) and the f:9 Computar 210 more generously (I
think they might have also made a 270 that will). Fuji has several
lenses in the 240 & 250 that will, but others will have more information. The Apo
Sironar-s and W series will cover 8x10 at 210mm focal length. The 210
Super Symmar will cover and is reputed to be a very good lens, but is
probably much too big for your range.
There are quite a few I have omitted, but this should be a start.
From: slberfuchs@aol.com (Ted Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 21 Jun 2002
Subject: Re: Wide Angle lens for 8x10?
I would also add to the list the Schneider Super Symmar 110 mm which exceeds
Schneider's specs in coverage and jsut barely gives you edge to edge coverage
in 8x10 with zero movements.
For me the real winner in the 200 - 270 range is the Fujinon 240A. Very small,
very lightweight, great resolution and contrast. It is one of the two lenses
that goes everywhere with me (the other is the super symmar 110).
Ted Harris
Resource Strategy
Henniker, New Hampshire
From: "Daniel G" danielgrenier@rogers.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wide Angle lens for 8x10?
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002
I have a 240 Rodenstock Sironar and it's not quite where I'd like it in
terms of coverage if front rise is heavy. I'd look for a good 10" Kodak
WideField Ektar for tons of coverage if you're going to do
architectural-type subject matter.
Good luck.
From: bg174@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Gudzinowicz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Korona 7x17 info needed
Date: 22 Jun 2002
"J Burke" burkeboyz@peoplepc.com wrote:
> Ran across a Korona 7x17 Banquet camera with good bellows, ext rail, 1 film
> holder (clean camera actually) priced at $700 complete w lensboard, Is it
> worth the money????????? Not an Ebay item but rather sitting on a shelf for
> sale and owner wants to move it.
> No lens but I have a 480 mm APO Nikkor in a Copal 3 for 8x10(will it cover
> the format?) --
The 480 mm f/9 Nikon Apo-Nikkor specs indicate coverage of 46 degrees,
or 407 mm. The 7x17 format with allowance for film edges requires a
minimum of 460 mm to cover. I'd suggest that you try it stopped down
and see if the barrel vignettes. If it doesn't. it should work since
the demands of contact printing aren't as great as enlarging. For closer
work such as portraits, it should cover. Here's a list of "modern"
7x17 lenses, and there are probably more which will work.
FL f/# Manufacturer & Model E/G Shtr YR IC DEG 7X17 Rise
mm mm Shift (in)
84 22 Wisner Hypergon 2/2 n.a. 98 462 140 0.1; 0.2
200 6.8 Rodenstock Grandagon 8/4 3 91 494 102 0.7; 1.6
200 6.8 Rodenstock Grandagon N 8/4 3 98 494 102 0.7; 1.6
210 8 Schneider Super Angulon 6/4 1, 3 56-98 501 100 0.9; 1.8
250 6.3 Kodak Wide Field Ektar 4/4 n.a. 53 460 85 0.0; 0.1
270 6.8 Kyvyx APO-Kyvytar n.a. 3 80 589 95 2.7; 4.6
273 6.8 Goerz Dagor 6/2 n.a. 53 518 87 1.2; 2.4
300 6.8 Schneider Symmar 6/2 n.a. 53 503 80 0.9; 1.9
300 5.6 Rodenstock APO Sironar 7/5 3 91 486 78 0.6; 1.2
300 5.6 Rodenstock APO Sironar W 7/5 3 98 486 78 0.6; 1.2
300 5.6 Sinar Sinaron WS n.a. 3 91 486 78 0.6; 1.2
305 6.8 Goerz Dagor 6/2 n.a. 53 579 87 2.5; 4.4
305 9 Computar F9 6/4 3 84 485 77 0.6; 1.2
355 7.7 Goerz Dagor 6/2 n.a. 53 674 87 4.5; 6.9
355 9 Schneider Graphic Claron 6/2 n.a. 68 479 68 0.4; 1.0
360 6.8 Schneider Symmar 6/2 n.a. 53 604 80 3.0; 5.1
360 9 Kyvyx APO-Kyvytar n.a. 3 80 523 72 1.4; 2.6
360 6.8 Calumet Caltar SII n.a. n.a. 76 504 70 1.0; 1.9
360 10 Fujinon AS 6/4 1 84 504 70 1.0; 1.9
360 5.6 Schneider Symmar 6/4 n.a. 56-76 504 70 1.0; 1.9
360 5.6 Nikkor W 6/4 3 91-98 495 69 0.8; 1.6
360 6.8 Schneider APO Symmar 6/4 3 91-98 495 69 0.8; 1.6
360 6.8 Schneider Symmar S 6/4 3 86 495 69 0.8; 1.6
360 6.8 Schneider Symmar S MC 6/4 3 84 495 69 0.8; 1.6
360 6.5 Fujinon CM-W 6/6 3 98 486 68 0.6; 1.2
360 6.3 Fujinon NWS 6/6 n.a. 86 486 68 0.6; 1.2
360 6.3 Fujinon W 6/4 3 76-98 486 68 0.6; 1.2
360 6.8 Rodenstock APO Sironar S 6/4 3 98 468 66 0.2; 0.5
375 6.3 Calumet Caltar n.a. n.a. 76 469 64 0.2; 0.5
420 7.7 Goerz Dagor 6/2 n.a. 53 797 87 6.9; 9.9
420 5.6 Fujinon FS 3/3 3 84 505 62 1.0; 2.0
420 5.6 Fujinon SFS 3/3 3 86 505 62 1.0; 2.0
420 4.5 Schneider Xenar 4/3 n.a. 56 505 62 1.0; 2.0
450 8 Fujinon CM-W 6/6 3 98 520 60 1.3; 2.5
450 8.5 Fujinon C 4/4 1 98 489 57 0.6; 1.4
450 8.5 Fujinon CS 4/4 1 86 489 57 0.6; 1.4
480 7.7 Goerz Dagor 6/2 n.a. 53 911 87 2 9.2; 12.5
480 9 Kyvyx APO-Kyvytar n.a. 3 80 697 72 4.9; 7.5
480 4.5 Schneider Xenar 4/3 n.a. 56 577 62 2.5; 4.3
480 8 Goerz Gotar 4/4 n.a. 53 510 56 1.1; 2.2
480 8.4 Rodenstock APO Sironar N 6/4 3 98 500 55 0.9; 1.8
480 8.4 Rodenstock Sironar N 6/4 3 91 500 55 0.9; 1.8
480 8 Schneider APO Symmar 6/4 3 91-98 500 55 0.9; 1.8
480 6.8 Schneider Symmar S 6/4 3 86 500 55 0.9; 1.8
480 6.8 Schneider Symmar S MC 6/4 3 84 500 55 0.9; 1.8
480 9 Sinar Sinaron S n.a. 3 91 479 53 0.4; 1.0
508 6.3 Ilex Acutar 4/3 n.a. 76 563 58 2.2; 3.9
508 4.5 Zeiss Tessar 4/3 n.a. 53 552 57 2.0; 3.5
600 11.5 Fujinon C 4/4 3 98 625 55 3.5; 5.6
600 11.5 Fujinon CS 4/4 3 86 625 55 3.5; 5.6
600 11.5 Docter Apo-Germinar 6/6 3 97 497 45 0.8; 1.7
600 9 Jenoptik Apo-Germinar 6/6 n.a. 56 497 45 0.8; 1.7
600 9 Rodenstock Apo Ronar 4/4 3 56 497 45 0.8; 1.7
600 9 Sinar APO Sinaron DBM n.a. n.a. 91 497 45 0.8; 1.7
600 9 Voigtlander Apo-Skopar 5/3 n.a. 56 497 45 0.8; 1.7
600 9 Jenoptik Apo-T 4/3 n.a. 56 473 43 0.3; 0.7
610 6.3 Zeiss Tessar 4/3 n.a. 53 662 57 4.2; 6.6
610 10 Goerz Gotar 4/4 n.a. 53 649 56 3.9; 6.3
610 11 Goerz APO Artar 4/4 n.a. 53 518 46 1.2; 2.4
610 11 Goerz Red Dot Artar 4/4 n.a. 56 518 46 1.2; 2.4
610 9 Nikon Apo-Nikkor 4/4 n.a. 68 518 46 1.2; 2.4
610 9 Schneider Repro-Claron 4/4 n.a. 56 518 46 1.2; 2.4
610 9 Rank Apotal 4/3 n.a. 56 505 45 1.0; 2.0
650 9 Voigtlander Apo-Skopar n.a. n.a. 53 538 45 1.7; 3.1
750 14.5 Docter Apo-Germinar 6/6 3 97 621 45 3.4; 5.5
750 9 Jenoptik Apo-Germinar 6/6 n.a. 56 621 45 3.4; 5.5
750 9 Jenoptik Apo-T 4/3 n.a. 56 591 43 2.8; 4.7
760 11 Nikon Apo-Nikkor 4/4 n.a. 68 645 46 3.9; 6.2
762 12.5 Goerz APO Artar 4/4 n.a. 53 647 46 3.9; 6.2
762 12.5 Goerz Red Dot Artar 4/4 n.a. 56 585 42 2.6; 4.5
762 9 Rank Apotal 4/3 n.a. 56 585 42 2.6; 4.5
762 10 Wray Apo-Process Lustrar 4/4 n.a. 56 495 36 0.8; 1.6
800 9 Rodenstock APO Ronar S 6/4 3 56 614 42 3.2; 5.3
800 11 Schneider APO Tele Xenar HM 5/5 3 98 504 35 1.0; 1.9
890 12.5 Goerz APO Artar 4/4 n.a. 53 756 46 6.1; 8.9
890 12.5 Goerz Red Dot Artar 4/4 n.a. 56 648 40 3.9; 6.2
900 9 Jenoptik Apo-Germinar 6/6 n.a. 56 746 45 5.9; 8.7
900 9 Jenoptik Apo-T 4/3 n.a. 56 709 43 5.2; 7.8
914 10 Wray Apo-Process Lustrar 4/4 n.a. 56 594 36 2.8; 4.8
965 4.5 Fujinon Fujinon 6/3 n.a. 56 780 44 6.6; 9.5
1000 19.5 Docter Apo-Germinar 6/6 3 97 828 45 7.6; 10.6
1067 14 Goerz APO Artar 4/4 n.a. 53 906 46 1 9.1; 12.4
1067 14 Goerz Red Dot Artar 4/4 n.a. 56 777 40 6.5; 9.4
1067 10 Wray Apo-Process Lustrar 4/4 n.a. 56 693 36 4.8; 7.4
1200 15 Goerz APO Artar 4/4 n.a. 53 1019 46 5 11.4; 14.9
1200 11 Jenoptik Apo-Germinar 6/6 n.a. 56 994 45 9 10.9; 14.3
1200 15 Goerz Red Dot Artar 4/4 n.a. 56 826 38 7.5; 10.6
1200 10 Wray Apo-Process Lustrar 4/4 n.a. 56 793 36 6.9; 9.8
1600 10 Wray Apo-Process Lustrar 4/4 n.a. 56 1040 36 9 11.8; 15.3
1780 16 Goerz APO Artar 4/4 n.a. 53 1511 46 6 21.2; 25.2
1780 16 Goerz Red Dot Artar 4/4 n.a. 56 1122 35 6 13.5; 17.1
From: "Brian Ellis" bellis60@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wide Angle lens for 8x10?
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002
The 210 G Claron works very well on 8x10 when stopped down to F 22 or
smaller. Plus it's a tiny lens. Plus it's inexpensive by large format
standards, especailly from Robert White. It's an F9 and is single coated,
neither of which have been a problem for me. I think Schneider stopped
making the G Clarons recently. However, dealers probably still have some on
their shelves or you should be able to find one used without a lot of
trouble.
"Gene A. Townsend" wings@dakotacom.net wrote
> "Mark" MarkWestling@cox.net wrote:
>
> >I'm currently considering buying an 8x10 to supplement my 4x5. I have a
> >Fuji 450mm f/12.5 lens that I plan to use on both formats.
> >
> >Does anyone have a recommendation for a lens in the 200-270mm range that
> >covers 8x10 nicely without weighing 5lbs? (like the Schneider 210mm XL)
> >
>
> I've used an Goerz Dagor 240 mm for many years for 8 by 10, and
> strongly recoomend this lens, which is very light weight (approx 1.5
> lbs.), and can be used with from element removed at F:45 as a crude
> 450 mm ish lens. These sell used for a low price, but no
> multicoatings are available.
> Regards,
>
> Gene A. Townsend
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: another mystery lens, short wollensak flavor
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002
76266.333@compuserve.com (Dan Fromm) wrote:
>All:
>
> I just got a mystery lens as part of a package, and wonder if anyone
>can shed light on what it is and what it might be good for. In view
>of the thing's size, this might not be the right forum for the
>question. If so, I'm sorry.
>
> Its front bezel is marked "Wollensak Velostigmat f/3.5". That's it,
>no indication of focal length, no serial number. Its focal length is
>approximately 50 mm. A real bit of oddness, the front end looks like
>a lens hood but in fact works the diaphragm, stops f/3.5 to f/16.
>
> The lens is on flange screwed to a 62 mm square aluminum board,
>pproximately 3.1 mm thick. The rear of the flange is enameled black
>and marked "Wollensak-Rochester U.S.A. Pat. Appl'd"
>
> The flange itself incorporates two focusing mechanisms, an outer one
>at the rear with a pair of short spiral slots and two set screws.
>This allows about 4 mm of focusing travel. The lens is in the second,
>a long focusing helical ~ 30 mm long. I haven't yet figured out how
>to extract the lens from the helical, or even if this is possible.
>
> I know who Wollensak was and that Wollesak used the name Velostigmat
>until ~ 1947. Any suggestions about the lens would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Dan
I don't have a specific answer. Wollensak made an enormous number of
lenses for special purpose cameras of various sorts. This might have
come from an instrument recording camera or something similar.
"Velostigmat" was a general purpose trade name which did not
indicate a specific design type. You may be able to figure out what
type of lens this is by shining a small flashlight into it and
counting reflections. Cemented surfaces will return rather dim
reflections, uncoated glass-air surfaces very bright ones. If the lens
is not too complicated you can determine the number of elements and
whether any are cemented.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Any experience with hacking an oscilloscope camera?
From: antispam@ftc.gov
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 200
Just picked up a 1975 oscilloscope camera (HP 197A)
This came with a standard 4x5 Graflok back that fits my Speed Graphic, so I
can use sheet film in holders and roll backs. It also has a non-standard
Polaroid back taking type 80 film.
The lens is a 3M/HP 75mm 1.9 that stops down to f/16. The lens is pre-set
into a houseing that makes it fixed focus very close. This housing is
inside a larger one and can be moved back and forth on a cam for limited
focusing on a screen.
I know that I can gut the thing and slap a view camera lens on the front to
make a very funky field camera. But I am wondering if anyone has experience
with that lens? I doubt that the two lens groups can simply be unscrewed
and placed in a standard shutter. The diapragm is mechanical, but the
shutter is fired with a simple electromagnet. Speeds are no faster that
1/30.
I may try to mount the lens assembly on the Speed Graphic and see what
happens when focused past the macro range.
If anyone has played with one of these, please let me know!
John
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Jena 12 cm F3.5 Tessar coverage?
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002
p2macgahan@compuserve.com (P. MacGahan) wrote:
>"Peter De Smidt" pdesmidt@fdldotnet.com wrote
>> Does anyone know the coverage of a Carl Zeiss Jena 120mm F3.5 Tessar?
>>
>> TIA,
>> Peter De Smidt
>
>Sorry; in my previous post I mentioned for a 180 mm. a 360mm circle
>illumination and 300 for good definition at small stops. That was
>an error. It was 260mm. circle of illumination at f:22 and about
>240mm. circle of good definition at small stops. You lens might
>be about 2/3 of that, perhaps 160mm, but perhaps not. The f:3.5
>lenses may be slightly different.
Zeiss tended to be quite conservative about coverage. The coverage
for the f/4.5 180mm lens given in a 1927 catalogue is:
At full aperture 6-1/2 x 4-3/4 inches, at small stops, 8-3/4 inches
diameter. Small stops probably means f/32. Metric equivalent is about
205mm (the diagonal of the plate given), and 222mm. This is about 58
deg and 63 deg. which are about right. A 240 mm image circle is about
67 deg, which a good Tessar will do but is about the limit.
As a comparison in claims Bausch & Lomb claimed their 7-1/16 inch
f/4x5 Tessar would cover 5x7 at full aperature.
The faster the lens the less its coverage will be.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Victor Loverro" victor.loverro@verizon.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: LF lens Comparison
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002
Try also:
http://www.thefstop.com/reference/flconv.html
"Sam Carleton" nospam@miltonstreet.com wrote...
> I am seriously considering getting into 5x7, have been shooting 4x5
> for a while now. My big question is about lens. I do most of my 4x5
> with a 135, which is still a touch too long for my liking. What is
> the equivalent in 5x7? Is there a web site some where which will help
> me compare? I was thinking that for starters, I would use the
> Schneider 210 Apo-Symmar that I own, is my impression correct that it
> does have more then enough coverage for a 5x7?
>
> Sam Carleton
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Dogmar 18cm f4,5 lens information?
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002
suibuliu@yahoo.com (Suibu Liu) wrote:
>Hi,
>I got, I believe, an Anniversary speed graphic 4X5 camera off ebay
>today. Along with the camera is a Dogmar 1:4,5 F=18cm D.R.P lens from
>C.P. Goerz Berlin, series number is 46882x (there is a matching number
>in the rear group behind the lens board too.)
>
>The lens is un-coated, and the aperature numbers are kind of strange,
>the numbers are 4,5, 6,3, 9, 12,5, 18, 25, and 36. (not like the
>numbers I am familiar with, such as f5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32 and etc.)
>
>Anyone knows any information about this lens? such as the year of lens
>and its coverage (will it cover 4X5 or larger)? Is this a sharp lens?
>
>Thanks,
>Suibu
The Goerz Dogmar is a four element air spaced lens of the "dialyte"
type. This is the same generic type as is the basis for the Goerz Apo
Artar and Kodak f/7.7, 203mm Ektar (and all Series 70 Kodak Anastigmat
lenses).
The Dogmar is made slightly unsymmetrical to improve its corrections
for infinity focus. These lenses were known for excellent color
correction. The eight glass-air surfaces tend to make it a little
flary without coatings.
The coverage of this type of lens tends to be narrow and doesn't
become much larger wiht stopping down. The 180mm Dogmar will just
barely cover a 5x7 but is better as a slightly long lens for 4x5.
Dogmars were made both by the original Goerz company in Germany and
by Goerz-American in the USA. Goerz Germany was merged with Zeiss in
1926 and while Zeiss continued to build Dagor lenses I don't think
they made the Dogmar. In any case, this lens dates from before the
merger and is a German made lens.
That also explains the f/stop series, one which was popular for
European made lenses for decades. Of course the stops are the same,
you will have to interpolate between the marked ones for the stops
more popular in the US.
These are very sharp lenses. They were popular for one-shot color
cameras and for single lens reflex cameras where a somewhat longer
than normal lens was required to clear the mirror box. The good color
correction was appreciated for color cameras.
The designer was Emile von Hoegh, the designer of the famous Dagor.
He developed the four element air spaced type lens from the Dagor by
replacing one of the cemented glass elements with an "air" lens. The
trade off was much better correcton of zonal spherical aberration but
much narrower coverage (a little more than half) of the Dagor's
coverage.
I have no serial number information for German made Goerz lenses.
DRP just means Deutche Reich Patent, or simply German Patent.
Following WW-2 this became DBP.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Dogmar 18cm f4,5 lens information?
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002
...(above)
A slight correction. The Dogmar was not designed by von Hoegh. He
designed the generic four element air spaced type sometimes known as a
Celor or Dialyte on which the Dogmar is based.
The Celor is a symmetrical lens, automatically optimised for 1:1 but
was found to have too much coma when used at infinity focus. The
Dogmar is a slightly un-symmetrical design intended to correct this
fault. It, and the Apochromatic Artar, were designed for Goerz by
Walther Zschokke. Zschokke replaced Emil von Hoegh as chief designer
for Goerz when von Hoegh became too ill to continue. He designed many
famous lenses, along with Franz Urban, another Goerz designer
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 15 Jun 2002
Subject: Re: Dogmar 18cm f4,5 lens information?
>Anyone knows any information about this lens? such as the year of lens
>and its coverage (will it cover 4X5 or larger)? Is this a sharp lens?
>
>Thanks,
>Suibu
>
The Dogmars were produced by Goerz to be used specifically on one shot color
cameras such as the Devin and the Curtis. Yes it will cover 4x5 and the ones
that I have used were not terribly impressive. A modern Symmar will easily
outperform any Dogmar. Photographers less kind than myself used to quipe, "The
Dogmar is a dog". But for its time it was a long fast lens which is what was
needed for the slow one shot color cameras. The 180mm focal length was used on
many 5x7 color cameras which it would cover since no swings or tilts were
possible.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: longer lens recommendation for 4x5
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002
Erik Ryberg ryberg@seanet.com wrote:
>Ed Margiewicz wrote:
>>
>> Greetings,
>> I would to get some recommendations for buying a 300mm lens for 4x5. I am
>> relatively new to LF as I bought a super speed graphic and 150mm caltar lens
>> last fall. I realized that I also need a little longer lens when doing
>> landscape and portraitures. I get a little confused if there are 300mm for
>> 5x7 or will all 300mm work for 4x5? I would love to move up to an arca
>> swiss 4x5 field in the future which has a full range of movements. Any
>> information or words of wisdom will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in
>> advance.
>> Ed M
>
>Hi Ed,
>
>I think you are going to need a telephoto design to fit the speed
>graphic. My Crown Graphic maxes out with about a 210 lens or so. (That
>gives me just a little room for closer than infinity shots.) There was
>a 15" lens manufactured by Wollensak that is often available on ebay.
>They are called Tele-Optars and have a maximum aperture of f5.6. Mine
>is quite good and offers huge movements on 4x5. It actually just barely
>gets to the corners of 8x10 but isn't much good that far out. The ones
>in barrel are pretty cheap, the ones in shutter go for about $200 or
>so. Your other option would be the modern telephotos by Nikon and Fuji,
>which are very expensive but well regarded. I've never used one.
>
>Incidentally, there is also a Wollensak tele-optar 10" that is quite
>sharp and contrasty, though it doesn't offer tremendous movements on
>4x5.
>
>If you ever get that Arca-Swiss, it may have enough bellows to handle a
>300 mm lens. Many are available from all the large lens companies. The
>Schneider G-Claron f9 is one of the less expensive.
I also have a 15" Optar, its a very good lens. Mine is uncoated but
coated ones were also made.
The cells of this lens will fit directly into a #4 Wollensak Betax
shutter. You will have to make an aperture plate but that's fairly
simple. Since the Super Graphic does not have a focal plane shutter it
can not use barrel lenses directly.
There is also a 12", f/5.6 Tele-Raptar which is an excellent lens. It
came in either a shutter or barrel but will fit directly into a #3
Betax shutter. This is the shutter commonly found on oscilloscope
cameras. I don't see many of these lenses for sale.
The maximum bellows draw for 4x5 Graphic cameras is around 12-1/5
inches so the telephoto is a necessity.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Usability of process camera lenses for LF
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002
msherck@aol.comimagine (Msherck) wrote:
>I have come across a few reasonably modern process camera lenses (1995 or so)
>and am wondering about their utility for LF photography. I have a whole set of
>Konica Hexanon II's (150 f/9, 210, and 300) and, while I figure they'll do fine
>as enlarger lenses (that's basically what they were, right?) is there any point
>to wondering how they'd do as taking lenses, or even whether it is possible to
>mount them into shutters (presumably *large* shutters!)? There's also an older
>(but coated) Ilex 8.25 in. f/5.6 lens which to me looks like it has potential.
>
>Does anyone have any experiance with this sort of thing? Thanks!
>
>Mike
These are probably four element lenses similar to the Apochromatic
Artar. The coverage given by the manufacturer for process lenses is
conservative since the image quality must be exceedingly high. For
pictorial purposes its usually somewhat larger. Four element air
spaced lenses of the Dialyte type do not have large image circles.
Generally the diameter at infinity focus is about equal to the focal
length.
While they are optimised for around 1:1 magnification the
corrections are fairly stable with object distance. The main
aberration to appear is coma which is proportional to the stop. When
stopped down to typical openings the coma will be gone. Optimum stop
is usually around f/22. Coverage is not increased by stopping down as
it is in many other lens designs.
They will certainly work as enlarging lenses but will also work well
for infinity focus uses. Konica has an excellent reputation for
quality optics.
Probably the best solution to a shutter is to adapt a large standard
shutter so that the lenses can be mounted on its front. That way you
can use a single shutter for any number of barrel lenses. The simplest
way of doing this is to have a fitting for a small lens board made to
fit the shutter and mount the lenses on individual boards which fit
the shutter. This is I think a better solution than a Packard shutter
because it gives you some range of regulated exposure times and flash
synch. Of course a large Packard shutter can also be mounted so as to
take an auxilliary lens board so the same arrangement can be used.
I am not quite sure which Ilex lens this is. Ilex built a number of
lenses for Calumet, generally of very high quality. The speed suggests
its a Plasmat, probably similar to a Schneider Symmar or Rodenstock
Sironar in basic design. Plasmats are essentially wide angle lenses
with typically about 75degree coverage at small stops (f/32).
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002
From: Smieglitz jsmigiel@kvcc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Cooke Soft Focus Lens
Steve,
I thought the current issue was very informative. It was nice to see a
variety of photographers doing hand-made stuff (building banquet cameras,
Pt/Pd and albumen printing, making their own lenses, etc.) and in a way
returning to an aesthetic where razor sharpness ala AA was not a primary
concern.
John Siskin's article on using diopters to make diffused focus view lenses was
very interesting. I've often thought about their potential but had been put
off by the expense of the optics from scientific supply houses. The tip about
optician/optics labs looks promising.
My only criticism has to do with the lack of a wide-open image in the Cooke
lens review. I do not recall seeing any image examples where this lens has
been used for its apparently intended purpose, i.e., shooting wide open to
achieve the soft-focus/diffused look. I would have much preferred to see a
portrait at f/4 than an image at f/8 or smaller in your article. I've checked
the Cooke site and don't see any examples there either. Does anyone know
where such images might be found on the web or in print?
It seems strange to me to acquire such a lens, especially at $3,400 (!), and
use it stopped down to get rid of the spherical abberation effect for which it
was designed. For that kind of money one could acquire a whole slew of
antiquated Verito, PortLand, etc., lenses with lots left over for some crispy
critters in shutters. I have several Veritos which are absolutely marvelous
wide-open and ho-hum stopped down, which apparently is also the case with the
new Cooke optic. You could also buy a mess of diopters for that money.
Looks like the Large Format Conference was a success. I would have really
liked to have seen Zoe Zimmerman's matte albumen and Stuart Melvin's gum/Pt
prints in person. I hope to attend the next one.
Congrats on a nice issue and with the conference.
Joe
From: fotocord fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Cooke Soft Focus Lens
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002
Steve Hamley wrote:
> Steve,
>
> I am also a paying subscriber to View Camera and don't object to
> content appearing on the web. I agree with Tom Duffy's comments about
> the lens. It's just too little for too much, although the concept and
> effort is certainly commendable. If it were $1,500 I'd consider one.
>
> Why can't a screw-in attachment lens, like a diopter, be made to
> "uncorrect" a lens for portraiture?
Ever think about getting an old lens and removing some elements to get this
effect? In my medformat camera I bought an old zeiss biometar and removed
all but the front element and moved it back close to the diaphram and it
makes interesting images with a short ext tube to get it to sorta focus :-)
--
Stacey
From: sahamley@netscape.net (Steve Hamley)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Cooke Soft Focus Lens
Date: 28 Jul 2002
Stacey,
Yep, I've even thought about removing elements from new(er) lenses
like convertible Symmars. Haven't done it yet, but ideally one would
like to avoid that flat, blue look (I do mostly color) that older
lenses intended for black and white sometimes give. That's supposedly
a nice thing about the Cooke, but not $3,500 nice.
BTW, the July/August issue of View Camera has an article on building
view camera lenses out of diopters. These are all "soft focus" as you
might imagine. Now all I have to do is find that green bean can....
Thanks!
Steve
From: bg174@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Gudzinowicz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Cooke Soft Focus Lens
Date: 28 Jul 2002
fotocord
From: bg174@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Gudzinowicz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Cooke Soft Focus Lens
Date: 25 Jul 2002
I was very pleased to hear that Cooke was manufacturing a lens
based on the Pinkham & Smith designs. Hopefully the line will
be extended for larger formats and MF SLRs.
If anyone is interested, the lens is described on the Cooke web site:
http://www.cookeoptics.com/product/ps945.html
A short review by Mark Osterman is included:
http://www.cookeoptics.com/product/Osterman_ltr.html
Barbara Lowry's article on Cooke lens history is reproduced:
http://www.cookeoptics.com/credits/may-june%20view%20camera.htm
I've included a table of specifications for the lenses she
mentions below (the specs were published in 1939).
Model f/# FL range Circle E/G Type
made deg
T, T & H Angelic, Ser 7b 6.5 3.25-12" 90 - Wide Angle
T, T & H Apo, Ser 9 10;16 13-48" 62 - Process
T, T & H Aviar, Ser 2 4.5 6-13.5" 51 - Aerial
T, T & H Aviar, Ser 3b 6 8.5-15" 53 4/4 Aerial
T, T & H Cooke-Anast Ser 14 6.3 13-21" 53 - Color Separation
T, T & H Cooke-Conv. Ser 15 6.8 12.25" 53 8/4 General
T, T & H Cooke-lens, Ser 2a 4.5 5-18" 48 3/3 General
T, T & H Cooke-lens, Ser 3a 6.5 5-18" 62 3/3 General
T, T & H Cooke-lens, Ser 4a 5.6 5-18" 60 3/3 General
T, T & H Cooke-lens, Ser 5a 8 5-18" 65 3/3 General
T, T & H Coric, Ser 13 2.9 6.25" 46 - General
T, T & H Distortionless Tele 5 - 20 4/4 2.3X Tele
T, T & H Eltic, Ser 8b 3.5 8-10.5" 29 5/3 2X Tele
T, T & H Planital-Apo 12.5 16.5-24" 45 - Process
T, T & H Portrait, Ser 14 6.3 13-21" 30 - Portrait
T, T & H Portrellic, Ser 2c 4.5 10.5-15" 48 - Home Portrait
T, T & H Portrellic, Ser 2e 4.5 10.5-18" 53 - Var. Soft Portrait
T, T & H Portric, Ser 2d 3.5 10.5-15" 47 - Process
T, T & H Portronic, Ser 6a 5.6 13-18" 47 - Var. Soft Portrait
T, T & H Pressic, Ser 2a 3.5 6.25-7.5" 47 - Var. Soft Portrait
T, T & H Process, Ser 5b 8;16 9-36" 65 - Process
T, T & H Speedic, Ser 10 2.5 6.25-9.25" 45 - General
T, T & H Telic 8 5.6 8.25-20" 30 4/2 2X Tele
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 300mm lens for 8x10
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002
danielpulman@hotmail.com (DanielP) wrote:
>I have a 150mm Rodenstock Sironar S that I can use for 4x5 and then
>switch the back to 10x8 and use a 300mm. I will be taking
>trancparencies of large paintings in my studio, so these focal lengths
>just work if I have back against the opposite wall. Sharpness,
>contrast and colour rendition and straight edges are important. Would
>a Nikkor 300mm M be good for this kind of application? Or what about
>a Schneider G-Claron? I really cannot afford one of the large
>Schneiders, Fujis or Rodenstocks. What differences would there be in
>the results from these two lenses? And perhaps a more general
>question: are these or any modern large format lenses prone to the
>kind of barrel or pin-cushion distortion found with wider 35mm lenses?
Almost any "modern" LF lens should do. By modern I mean lenses built
since about the mid 1950's. Most of the general purpose LF lenses are
of the Plasmat type, six elements in four groups. These lenses are
very well corrected for the main aberrations and are nearly enough
symmetrical to have very little geometrical distortion. Single coated
lenses have good color rendition although multi-coating will show up
as better saturation and purity.
Process lenses, like the Goerz Red-Dot Apochromatic Artar should be
excellent since they were designed for similar work. There are similar
lenses made by other manufacturers. The Red-Dot series was built
starting in the late 1950's and is single coated. Coating is necessary
in this type because there are eight glass-air surfaces, enough to
make a difference in color work.
The non-convertible version of the Symmar is superior to the older
convertible version, these lenses are fairly common on the used
market. Rodenstock's version is the Sironar, an excellent lens but
hard to find used.
While the Artar type of lens has limited coverage remember that the
image circle gets larger when the lens is used for objects closer than
infinity. This starts to make a difference for reductions of maybe
1/5th. One can sometimes use a shorter lens and still get adequate
coverage. The tradeoff is corner illumination, which is better for the
longer lens.
Even a Kodak Commercial Ektar will perform well but must be inspected
carefully for glass blemishes and, especially, hazing of the cement in
the rear element. The Commercial Ektar was designed for color work and
is nearly apochromatic.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: fotocord fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Does anybody like the Rodenstock Geronar?
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002
John Y. wrote:
> I am considering getting a 150mm Rodenstock Geronar with a toyo field
> camera, but the experiences of several people have discouraged me. My old
> photo teacher said that he got one, and it wasn't very sharp, nor
> contrasty. The store I am buying it from told me that they have sold 4 or
> 5 of them,
> and none of the buyers have been thrilled with the performance. I also
> searched groups.google.com a bit, and didn't find anything wonderful about
> it.
>
> So, is anybody out there really pleased with it?
Can't coment on the 150mm but I have the 210mm version and am quite pleased
with it. I had an 8 1/2 comercial ektar (that many people rave about) and
the sample of the 210mm geronar I got is sharper and has better contrast at
f16 to f22 than that classic kodak and is mounted in a modern shutter with
multicoating. Most people recomend against these because they are a 3
element lens and maybe the 150 and the 90 are dogs? But I can say the 210
sample I have works very well, is lightweight and covers enough area for my
uses.
--
Stacey
From: 76266.333@compuserve.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Usability of process camera lenses for LF
Date: 21 Jul 2002
msherck@aol.comimagine (Msherck) wrote...
> I have come across a few reasonably modern process camera lenses (1995 or so)
> and am wondering about their utility for LF photography. I have a whole set of
> Konica Hexanon II's (150 f/9, 210, and 300) and, while I figure they'll do fine
> as enlarger lenses (that's basically what they were, right?) is there any point
> to wondering how they'd do as taking lenses, or even whether it is possible to
> mount them into shutters (presumably *large* shutters!)? There's also an older
> (but coated) Ilex 8.25 in. f/5.6 lens which to me looks like it has potential.
> Does anyone have any experiance with this sort of thing? Thanks!
>
> Mike
Um, I have a 150/9 GRII that I've done nothing with yet, so can't help
there directly, but I also have a 210/9 GRII. Steve Grimes (more
unpaid advertising) made an adapter to hold it in front of a #1
shutter for me and I got a female #1-to-male T thread adapter from SRB
Film (more still). My intention was to use it in front or a Copal #1
Press on 2x3 Graphics, but so far I've shot with it only on a Nikon
with lots of extension tubes. At 30' it matches a 200/4 MicroNikkor
AIS and @ 1:1 @ f/11 and f/16 it beats the MicroNikkor. Haven't shot
it on 2x3 because I've been doing other things and haven't been
shooting much, but that will change.
I have, though, mounted it on a Century Graphic and looked through it.
At infinity it doesn't vignette. This per calculations, which
indicate that with my adapter from SKG and on a Copal #1 it will
vignette on 4x5. It shouldn't vignette on a similar adapter in front
of an Ilex #3, but to be sure if you want to use it, try a somewhat
larger shutter. I don't recall if a Copal 3 is much larger than an
Ilex 3, but there's always the Ilex #5.
The 150 shouldn't vignette on 4x5 on a #1, certainly won't vignette in
front of an Ilex 3, in fact it can be stuffed inside the front of a
#3. I know 'cause I have one.
I don't know how big y'r 300 GRII is, so can't make suggestions.
Hope this helps,
Dan
From: 76266.333@compuserve.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Anybody know anything in detail about the Oscillo Paragon?
Date: 24 Jul 2002
"Kenneth J. Rice" krice@utahisp.com wrote
> I have a chance to pick up another 75mm f/1.9 Ilex Oscillo Paragon. Like
> the one I already have, this is mounted in a #3X Universal shutter
> (which seems to be a press shutter). I've had a number of "experts" tell
> me a number of conflicting things about the lens.
> One person said that since it was designed to focus on an
> oscilloscope screen, it wouldn't focus at infinity.
> Another said that it will perform just like any other 75mm lens
> (when mounted on a 4x5 camera).
>
> I would love to get some information from People that I Respect,
> such as Richard Knoppow or Art Kramer.
> Hopefully,
I'm not respectable, but I'll answer anyway.
I have one. It will focus to infinity, but it won't cover 4x5.
I bought mine for the shutter. Ilex's Universal shutter is indeed a
press shutter. Steve Grimes (www.skgrimes.com) gives dimensions.
If you intend to get the thing for the shutter, be aware that the
shutter is most probably not threaded externally at the rear. That
is, it can't be mounted on a lens board if there is a lens cell
screwed into the back. Mounting it on a board will require a flange
that is threaded externally; the flange screws into the back of the
shutter, the board is clamped between flange and shutter.
I got mine with the idea of having a lens mounted in front of it. It
turned out that putting the lens in question in front of a Copal #1
Press from a Polaroid MP-4 was the better solution for my situation.
Hope this helps,
Dan
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Anybody know anything in detail about the Oscillo Paragon?
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002
....(quotes query above)
Certainly it will focus at infinity but its corrected especially for
use on oscilloscopes at a fixed magnification so its image quality is
not so good at infinity focus.
+
All lenses with fixed elements (not movable) can be correcect for
simutaneous correction of spherical aberration, coma, and astigmatism
at only one object distance. How well they stay corrected at other
distances depends on the design of the lens. In general, the faster
the lens the more the corrections vary with distance. In this case the
lens could be optimized for a single distance without compromising it
so the performance is good at large apertures with a relatively simple
lens.
Oscilloscope camera lenses of very similar design were built by all
the major manufacturers who did OEM work. Similar lenses made by
Wollensak, Ilex, Rodenstock, and others are quite common.
Since most oscilloscope traces are recorded digitally now most of
the cameras these lenses were built for have been retired. The cameras
are pretty much useless for anything other than their original purpose
so they are scrapped and the lenses sold off.
The shutters are simple since the cameras were use mainly to record
single traces. Very high or very low shutter speeds were not required,
nor was any particular accuracy.
A note: The term "press shutter" for a self cocking shutter seems to
have come into use mainly by Japanese shutter manufacturers in the
last few years. This is NOT what the term has traditionally meant. A
"press shutter" was a shutter intended for press photography which
included a "blade arrestor" to allow focusing of the lens without
resetting the speed control to T. Press shutters have a button or
lever for holding the shutter blades open for focusing regardless of
the speed setting. Old Compur press shutters also had oversized
cocking levers for cold weather use.
No press camera in the old days would have had a self-setting
shutter (what would be called double action in a gun) because they are
limited in their maximum speeds, and are generally less accurate than
shutters which require cocking. Both because the motor power is
limited. Since the shutter is cocked by pressing the tripping lever
the "trigger pull" becomes inconveniently heavy if too strong a motor
is used. For that reason alone self setting shutters were NEVER used
on press cameras. The name is just a little a mistaken understanding
of what the term meant. Of course, its been establishe now so will
never be changed.
Sometimes misunderstandings become more prevalent then the correct
ones. For instance, the commonly used term "carrot and stick" does NOT
mean reward and punishment, although commonly used that way now. The
mis-use comes from too many culturally illiterate folk in the news
business.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002
From: Stuart Phillips Stuart.Phillips@umb.edu
Subject: RE: [Rollei] A Zeiss Question OFF Rollei topic - Cooke Lenses from England
According to a recent article in View Camera magazine (May/June 2002) - I'll
send you a scan if you want to email me off-thread, Cooke lenses were made by
the English company Cooke, which BTW has recently started to sell a 229mm 4.5
soft focus portrait lens with shade. They are based in Leicester England and
have a website at www.cookeoptics.com
The Cooke Triplet, noted in the list, was a particular specialty of theirs.
Ansel Adams was among the users of their lenses, as were Clarence White and
Alfred Stieglitz. The company designers held more than 100 patents and it was
one of their lenses that made Technicolor possible.
Stuart Phillips
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] A Zeiss Question OFF Rollei topic - Cooke Lenses from England
you wrote:
>According to a recent article in View Camera magazine (May/June 2002) -
I'll send you a scan if you want to email me off-thread, Cooke lenses were
made by the English company Cooke, which BTW has recently started to sell a
229mm 4.5 soft focus portrait lens with shade. They are based in Leicester
England and have a website at www.cookeoptics.com
>
>The Cooke Triplet, noted in the list, was a particular specialty of
theirs. Ansel Adams was among the users of their lenses, as were Clarence
White and Alfred Stieglitz. The company designers held more than 100
patents and it was one of their lenses that made Technicolor possible.
>
>Stuart Phillips
Cooke Triplet is used as a generic name for a type of lens invented by
Harold Dennis Taylor in the late 1890's. Taylor worked for Cooke of York,
an optical instrument company who made mainly surveying instruments,
microscopes, and the like. They were not interested in making photographic
lenses so Taylor offered the design to Taylor, Taylor, and Hobson, a well
known English lens and instrument manufacturer. TT&H; undertook the
refinement of the design and its manufacture but called it a Cooke lens
after the company of origin.
At some later time Cooke was aquired by TT&H;, and is now an independant
company again.
Triplet lenses are the simplest form an anastigmat lens can have. It has
just enough degrees of freedom for the designer to correct all the primary
aberrations and control focal length. A very great number of more complex
designs can be seen to derive from the Triplet although their designers did
not always start with a triplet in arriving at their designs. The Zeiss
Tessar of Paul Rudolph is an example. Rudolph started with one of his
previous designs.
Both Hans Harting and Eder have considerable respect for Taylor, about
the only non German designer they think well of.
TT&H; employed other first class designers, among them Horace W. Lee. Lee
is the one who developed Ruldoph's original Planar into a practical design
in the form of the TT&H; Opic, the predecessor of the Zeiss Biotar and a
great many double Gauss lenses. He was also the designer of the TT&H;
Panchro and Speed Panchro, both Opic types, which became the standard lens
for motion picture photography for many years.
TT&H; developed and built retro-focus (reversed telephoto) lenses for
Technicolor. The Technicolor three-strip color separation camera, used from
about 1935 until 1951, had a beam splitter prism block behind the lens. The
depth of this block, and the distance to the film gates made the use of
standard type lenses impossible even when somewhat longer than "normal"
focal length. Just as with todays single lens reflex cameras require
retro-focus lenses to clear the mirror box, the Technicolor camera required
them to clear the prism.
TT&H; also made highly corrected projection lenses for Technicolor. Some of
these lenses traveled with "Gone with the Wind" on its original road show
engagment to insure adequate projection quality at theaters.
The Cooke Triplet has a tendency to have to much uncorrected spherical
aberration. This can be made use of in making a soft focus lens. Because
the lens is sensitive to element spacing its possible to control the
softness by making one of the elements, usually the center one, adjustable.
Since the aperture also affects spherical this makes it possible to have a
wide variation of softness but also to have some range where softness and
exposure can be controlled independantly. Slow Triplets can be highly
corrected and TT&H; did at one time offer apochromatic process triplets.
However, more complex lenses offer more degrees of freedom so are easier to
correct. Beause of the precision needed in making a high quality triplet it
probably not much less expensive than a Tessar despite having one less
element and no cemented surfaces.
Triplets and Tessars have a lot of power in the front element. That makes
them suitable for front element focusing lenses since a quite small change
in spacing results in a farily large change in focal length. By careful
design its possible to make a lens which holds its corrections reasonably
well over its focusing range. Front element focusing Triplets and Tessars
are very common on small cameras where unit focusing would be much more
expensive to implement.
I was contacted by Cooke about a year ago asking if there was a market for
their old portrait lens. Of couse, I couldn't give a definite answer but
tought it was worth pursuing. Evidently, they decided to offer such lenses.
I am not sure when TT&H; stopped making photographic lenses, they were
sill offering a catalogue in the 1950's. Hollywood switched to a new Bauch
& Lomb lens, the Baltar around 1950. This was also a Biotar/Opic type but
used newer glass and was hard coated. Baltar, and later, Super Baltar lenes
became the standard for many years. They now sell at paper weight prices.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "G.Penate" penate@home.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Newbie just starting 4x5 has 3 queries
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002
"John Hendry" pict@pict.co.uk wrote
>
> 240mm/f9 SK G-Claron
> I bought the lens cells for this and the copal #1 shutter separately.
> Consequently the aperture plate on the shutter is not correct for the lens.
This is the way I do it: You need a spot light meter (the metering system
of your 35mm camera can also be used). Take a lens that came mounted in
shutter from factory or any other lens you know the aperture settings are
good, find a wall evenly lighted, mount your factory lens focus on infinity
and them aim the lens to the wall, set the aperture to f/16 (or any other
setting) and under the focusing cloth take a light meter reading on the
center of the ground glass. Do then the same with the lens you want to
calibrate, that is, mount it on the camera, focus it at infinity, aim it at
the wall and take a meter reading at the center of the ground glass and
start moving the diaphragm until you get the same reading you got with the
factory lens, when you get it that's f/16 in your uncalibrated lens. the
rest of the stops are found by simple moving the aperture until the meter
reads 1 stop more or 1 stop lens, when you open up or close down the
aperture, respectively.
Hope it helps,
Guillermo
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Newbie just starting 4x5 has 3 queries
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002
"John Hendry" pict@pict.co.uk wrote:
>That's a big help Erik. I take it the diameters you mention are taken at the
>iris. The 23mm for wide open (f9) looks to be spot on in my lens. If we
>assume that's correct (or at least the most accurate measurement) then the
>progession of iris diameters for f11 to f90 should go
>18.8/12.9/9.2/6.3/4.4/3.0/2.1 which agrees pretty well with your measured
>values. Probably going to be accurate enough if I set the wide open aperture
>to 23mm and place the smaller apertures using a light meter on the glass
>with the camera pointed at a uniform light source. The iris opening on the
>copal is heptagonal and not particulary spherical, and it might be a bit
>tricky to assess the mean diameter as accurately as actually measuring the
>light. Did you use calipers on the iris from an 'apex' to the middle of the
>opposite 'edge'? At least I'm confident from your numbers that I'll be well
>within the ballpark this way.
>
>The Arista film looks like good value. Ever tried the 125 ASA version?
>Thanks.
>John
I no longer have the original post in this thread, I assume it was
from John Hendry.
While measuring the iris diameter is OK you can get a better
measure, and I think easier, by measuring the _effective_ stop
diameter. To do this you need a point source light, which can be a
penlight behind a card and a sheet of translucent material like
tracing paper large enough to fit over the front of the lens.
The pinhole sorce must be place _exactly_ at the focal plane of the
lens for infinity. When you have it there place the translucent screen
over the lens and measure the circle of light projected on it by the
lens. This is an "image" of the entrance pupil which takes into
account the magnification of the stop by the lens. For many lenses its
negligibly different from the physical size of the iris, but can be
significant for some lenses. Its also easy to measure and doesn't
require disassembling the lens.
To find the exact infinity focus of the lens autocollimate it using
the same light and card. Of course, for this the card should be white.
Place a plane mirror over the front of the lens. A first surface
mirror is ideal but a plain shaving mirror will work OK. Just make
sure the flat surface of the mirror is facing the lens, not the
concave magnifying side.
Adjut the lens so that the image of the light reflected back
throught the lens toward the card is in sharpest focus. Get the image
as close to the pin hole as possible while still being able to see it.
This places the lens in exact infinity focus. You can now measure
the effective stop diameter.
You can also find the principle planes of the lens if you know its
exact focal length. By definition the location of the principle planes
are one focal length from the image toward the lens.
If you don't know the focal length this will help measure it. If the
lens is focused for exactly 1 to 1 magnification the _difference_ in
distance from the screen to the lens (the focus extension) is exactly
one focal length. This measurement is more easily done with the camera
on a view camera.
The front or first principle plane is measured by simply turning the
lens around and again focusing it using the autocollimator mirror.
You don't need this for calculating the focal length or f/stops but
it is sometimes useful to know.
Since you now know the exact focal length and the diameter of the
_effective_ stop you can calculate the f/stops quite accurately and
mark them on the shutter or barrel.
>"Erik Ryberg" ryberg@seanet.com wrote
>> John Hendry wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> > 240mm/f9 SK G-Claron
>> > -------------------------
>> > I bought the lens cells for this and the copal #1 shutter separately.
>> > Consequently the aperture plate on the shutter is not correct for the
>lens.
>> > When I start to open up the iris, the blades just start to become
>visible
>> > when looking through the lens when the aperture pointer is set to f8 on
>the
>> > plate. Now if I assume that at this point the aperture is exactly f9
>(the
>> > maximum aperture printed on the front cell), can I just extrapolate each
>> > setting accordingly. ie when set at f45 on the scale the actual aperture
>is
>> > roughly one third stop less than f45? (~f52) Or failing that has anyone
>any
>> > suggestions as to how to derive the aperture scale empirically. I can
>> > probably assume the focal length is 240mm but how to determine the
>effective
>> > lens aperture accurately?
>> >
>> Hi John,
>>
>> 1. Give the 135 mm Componon a try as a taking lens. I have read of many
>> people doing this; I think coverage is pretty slim on 4x5, but I don't
>> know.
>>
>> 2. 240 G -Claron stop diameters.
>> f9, 23 mm
>> f11, 18.8mm
>> f16, 12.7 mm
>> f22, 91 mm
>> f32, 6.2 mm
>> f45, 4.1 or 4.2 mm
>> f64, 3 mm
>> f90, don't shoot at f90. I can't measure that small. But it looks like
>> about 2.3 mm.
>>
>> 3. Film. Buy a 100 sheet box of Arista 400 from
>> www.freestylesalesco.com and forget about that zone system business
>> until you get used to developing the film and using the camera. Which
>> will probably take all 100 sheets. It's a great film and you'll be very
>> happy with it, I'm sure.
>>
>> Erik Ryberg
>
>
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "G.Penate" penate@home.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Newbie just starting 4x5 has 3 queries
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002
If 23mm is accurate for f/9, then the progressions will go like this:
f/9 = 23mm
f/11 = 18.8mm SQRT((23^2)/2^0.58)
f/16 = 13.3mm SQRT((18.8^2)/2)
f/22 = 9.4mm 18.8 / 2
f/32 = 6.6mm 13.3 / 2
f/45 = 4.7mm 9.4 / 2
f/64 = 3.3mm 6.6 / 2
f/90 = 2.4mm 4.7 / 2
Guillermo
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Schneider-kreuznach lenses
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002
george@amtechdisc.com wrote:
>I have a graphics art camera, an Agfa Repromaster, that is totally
>obsolete. But I had some fun with it. I've tried to sell it but no one is
>interested. I've had an offer of less than $1 US. It runs on 220 V/20
>Amps, with four 500 Watt quartz lights. It has a backlight on the
>copyboard for exposing transparencies. The rated size is 14x17, but I
>don't think more than 8x10 is realistic with even exposure for photo
>work. I used it a bit for enlarging 35mm B&W; up to 4x6.
>
>But aren't these lenses good for 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 work, as well as
>enlarging? The lenses are Schneider-Kreuznach, models G-Claron F-9/210mm
>and Comparon F5.6/150mm. As far as I can see the lenses are in top shape.
>There is no shutter on the lens.
>
>Are these worth anything? Should I keep the lenses and try to sell them
>for a hundred bucks or whatever?
>You can see a picture of the camera here:
>
> http://www.duplication.ca/sale/repromaster.jpg
>
>I also have a bunch of special effect halftone screens that I think give
>a much better picture for offset printing than the equivalent effect in
>Photoshop. Like Mezzotint, steel rule, etc. It's too bad the technology is
> obsolete. I'll hate to throw these screens in the garbage. I'd love to
>sell the camera and screens for a small sum to someone who could use it
>commercially or artistically, rather than scrapping everything.
>
>george
>george@amtechdisc.com
These are process lenses of a generic type known as a Dialyte. They
are four element air spaced type where all the elements are either
bi-concave, bi-convex, or plano on one surface. The famous
Apochromatic Artar made by Goerz is the same general type. The color
correction comes from choice of glass types and from symmetry.
Although optimized for 1:1 magnification this type holds its
corrections well for objects at infinity. The vice is narrow coverage,
typical Dialyte process lenses are rated at 45degrees coverage at
infinity for best image quality but in practice cover about ten
degrees more satisfactorily. The coverage does not increase
significantly when stopped down.
There are many of these lenses on the market from process cameras
which have been supplanted by digital devices. Even though they were
quite expensive new the number on the used market makes them both
cheap and a bargain. Usually, the preformance of these lenses, within
their limits, is excellent.
The 210 lens will cover 4x5 nicely but probably not 5x7 at infinity.
The image circle of a lens at 1:1 is 4X the infinity value, so used as
intended, the 210mm would cover 8x10 easily.
The Comparon is a low price enlarging lens of pretty good quality,
not worth a whole lot.
The camera could probably be converted to an 8x10 or even 11x14
enlarger. It would have some value for that. Process cameras in
general are a drug on the market and many have simply been junked.
If the process screens are real glass cross-screens they may have
some value. I will leave this one to Jean-David Beyer who knows about
such things and follows this group.
Most halftoning is done electronically using computers and
imagesetters. While cross-screen in the hands of a master could
produce exceptional work most old style halftoning was not so good.
Most printing shops switched to pre-screened film when it became
available since it produced better quality in the hands of an average
worker, and both have been displaced by electronic/digital means now.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: aaron@post-modern.net (Aaron van de Sande)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wide lens for 8x10
Date: 18 Jul 2002
You are going to pay a big premium for the 'gold rim' (and gain
little). You can also look into some of the quality dagor clones such
as made by ross or wray. Coating isn't that important with the Dagor
since there are only 4 reflective surfaces.
Be careful with the older schneider agulons, there was considerable
variability in their quality. Are you looking for a smaller, lighter
lens?
--Aaron
"Mark Cheadle" mcheadle@columbus.rr.com wrote
> Greeting All!
>
> I am at the beginning of my quest for a lens in the 6 1/2" (165mm) range
> that will cover 8x10. Since all of my work is contact printed BW, i do not
> need anything SUPER critical (no need for a NikonSW, say) but would like to
> find a lens with sufficient coverage a certainly adequate contrast! At this
> point in my search, the choices seem to be an Angulon or a GoldRim WA Dagor.
> Any other suggestions or comments on the lenses listed above? Thanks for
> your comments!
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark Cheadle
From: bg174@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Gudzinowicz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wide lens for 8x10
Date: 18 Jul 2002
"Mark Cheadle" mcheadle@columbus.rr.com wrote:
> Greeting All!
>
> I am at the beginning of my quest for a lens in the 6 1/2" (165mm) range
> that will cover 8x10. Since all of my work is contact printed BW, i do not
> need anything SUPER critical (no need for a NikonSW, say) but would like
> to find a lens with sufficient coverage a certainly adequate contrast! At
> this point in my search, the choices seem to be an Angulon or a GoldRim WA
> Dagor. Any other suggestions or comments on the lenses listed above?
> Thanks for your comments!
Modern wide to normal lenses covering 8x10.
The table includes focal lengths, f/stop, model, elements/groups, shutter,
the year of publication of the specifications, image circle in millimeters
and degrees, and rise/fall/shift expected in the horizontal and vertical
orientations.
FL f/# Manufacturer & Model E/G Shtr YR IC DEG 8X10 Rise
mm mm Shift (")
84 22 Wisner Hypergon 2/2 n.a. 98 462 140 3.4; 3.8
150 8 Nikkor SW 8/4 1 84-98 398 106 1.9; 2.3
150 5.6 Schneider Super Symmar XL 8/6 1 98 384 104 1.6; 1.9
155 6.8 Rodenstock Grandagon N 6/4 1 98 383 102 1.6; 1.9
155 6.8 Sinar Sinaron W n.a. 1 91 383 102 1.6; 1.9
155 6.8 Rodenstock Grandagon 6/4 1 91 369 100 1.3; 1.5
159 12.5 Wollensak Extreme WA Ser 3a n.a. n.a. 53 379 100 1.5; 1.8
165 8 Goerz Super-Dagor WA 6/2 n.a. 53 393 100 1.8; 2.1
178 6.8 Goerz Dagor 6/2 n.a. 53 338 87 0.5; 0.7
184 18 B&L; Extreme WA Protar V n.a. n.a. 53 368 90 1.2; 1.5
190 6.3 Kodak Wide Field Ektar 4/4 n.a. 53 348 85 0.8; 0.9
190 6.3 Kodak Wide Field Ektar n.a. n.a. 76 319 80 0.1; 0.1
210 6.8 Goerz Dagor 6/2 n.a. 53 399 87 2.0; 2.3
210 6.8 Kyvyx APO-Kyvytar n.a. 1 80 385 85 1.6; 1.9
210 6.8 Schneider Angulon 6/2 3 56-76 385 85 1.6; 1.9
210 5.6 Fujinon W 6/5 1 76 352 80 0.9; 1.0
210 6.8 Schneider Symmar 6/2 n.a. 53 352 80 0.9; 1.0
210 9 Computar F9 6/4 1 84 322 75 0.1; 0.2
240 6.8 Goerz Dagor 6/2 n.a. 53 456 87 3.2; 3.7
240 6.8 Schneider Symmar 6/2 n.a. 53 403 80 2.0; 2.4
240 5.6 Schneider APO Symmar 6/4 1 91-98 355 73 0.9; 1.1
240 6.8 Goerz Golden Dagor n.a. n.a. 76 342 71 0.6; 0.8
240 9 Fujinon AS 6/4 0 84 336 70 0.5; 0.6
240 6.8 Goerz Gold Dot Dagor n.a. n.a. 76 336 70 0.5; 0.6
240 9 Schneider Graphic Claron 6/2 n.a. 68 324 68 0.2; 0.2
250 6.3 Kodak Wide Field Ektar 4/4 n.a. 53 460 85 3.3; 3.8
250 6.3 Kodak Wide Field Ektar n.a. n.a. 76 420 80 2.4; 2.8
250 6.8 Fujinon W 6/5 1 76 398 77 1.9; 2.3
250 6.8 Fujinon WS 6/4 1 84 398 77 1.9; 2.3
250 6.3 Fujinon CM-W 6/6 1 98 319 65 0.1; 0.1
254 6.3 Kodak Commercial Ektar n.a. n.a. 76 317 64 0.0; 0.0
270 6.8 Goerz Gold Dot Dagor n.a. n.a. 76 385 71 1.6; 1.9
270 6.8 Goerz Golden Dagor n.a. n.a. 76 378 70 1.5; 1.7
270 9 Schneider Graphic Claron 6/2 n.a. 68 364 68 1.2; 1.4
270 9 Schneider G Claron 6/4 1 84-98 337 64 0.5; 0.6
273 6.8 Goerz Dagor 6/2 n.a. 53 518 87 4.6; 5.1
Wide lenses manufactured before 1939.
The minimum focal length to cover 8x10 was calculated from the view angle and
may not correspond to a manufactured focal length. However, lenses longer than
that value should cover 8x10. Since these lenses are uncoated, those with 2 or 3
groups will give the least amount of flare. Check the f#'s since lenses
were made with the same names but different designs and coverage.
Model f/# FL Range Circle E/G Min. FL to
Made Deg Cover 8x10
Aldis Ser 3a 7.7 5-11" 100 - 136 mm or 5.4"
B & L Ext. Wide, Ser 5 18 3.5-37" 90 4/2 163 mm or 6.4"
Beck Isostigmar 4 6.3 3.5-19" 90 5/5 163 mm or 6.4"
Boyer Beryl 6.8 50-250 mm 85 6/2 177 mm or 7."
Busch Lenkar 9 65-300 mm 80 - 194 mm or 7.6"
Dallmeyer Wide-angle Anast. 11 3-9" 100 - 136 mm or 5.4"
Goerz Dagor Ser 3 6.8 40-900 mm 85 6/2 177 mm or 7."
Goerz Pantar 6.3 86-276 mm 85 8/2 177 mm or 7."
Hugo Meyer Aristostigmat 6.3 1.5-20" 90 4/4 163 mm or 6.4"
Hugo Meyer Dbl.Aristostigmat 6.8 40-900 mm 82 8/2 187 mm or 7.4"
Hugo Meyer Euryplan 6 2-24" 85 6/4 177 mm or 7."
Hugo Meyer W.A. Aristostigmat 9 3-11" 100 4/4 136 mm or 5.4"
Laake Dialytar 6.3 75-210 mm 85 4/4 177 mm or 7."
Laake Pololyt 6.3 75-360 mm 65 3/3 255 mm or 10."
Reichert Combinar 6.3 90-240 mm 82 8/2 187 mm or 7.4"
Reichert Neukombinar 6.8 60-360 mm 95 - 149 mm or 5.9"
Rodenstock Perigon 12 90-750 mm 110 4/2 114 mm or 4.5"
Ross Wide-angle 16 3-12" 95 - 149 mm or 5.9"
Ross Wide-angle-Xpres 4 4-20" 80 6/4 194 mm or 7.6"
Schneider Angulon 6.8 3.5-8.25" 105 6/2 125 mm or 4.9"
Schneider Symmar 6.8 2-14" 80 6/2 194 mm or 7.6"
Schulze Euryplan 1 4.5 90-320 mm 80 6/4 194 mm or 7.6"
Schulze Euryplan 2 6 60-600 mm 90 6/4 163 mm or 6.4"
Schulze Euryplan 3 7.7 60-600 mm 82 6/4 187 mm or 7.4"
Simon Octanar 6.3 90-600 mm 85 8/2 177 mm or 7."
Steinheil Orthostigmat B 6.8 50-600 mm 85 6/2 177 mm or 7."
Steinheil Orthostigmat D 8 60-250 mm 80 6/2 194 mm or 7.6"
Steinheil Orthostigmat E 12 70-250 mm 100 6/2 136 mm or 5.4"
Taylor, T. & H. Angelic, Ser 7b 6.5 3.25-12" 90 - 163 mm or 6.4"
Voigtlander Collinear 4 12.5 4-12" 80 6/2 194 mm or 7.6"
Watson Holostigmat 11 3-9" 110 6/2 114 mm or 4.5"
Wollensak Extreme W.A. 12.5 4.5-13" 95 - 149 mm or 5.9"
Wollensak Velostigmat 3 9.5 4.5-9" 90 - 163 mm or 6.4"
Wray Universal Anast. 6.8 3.5-7" 90 6/2 163 mm or 6.4"
Wray W.A. Anast. 16 4-7" 100 4/2 136 mm or 5.4"
Zeiss Protar 3a 9 75-410 mm 97 4/2 144 mm or 5.7"
Zeiss Protar 5 18 40-970 mm 110 4/2 114 mm or 4.5"
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002
From: hogarth hogarth@directvinternet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: info for fujinon lenses
Ed Margiewicz wrote:
> Anyone know the website for Fujinon lenses or perhaps where one can get
> specs and prices?
> Thanks
> Ed M
For information: http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/fujinon.htm
For specs: http://members.aol.com/subgallery/byfl.htm
For prices in USA, try: http://www.badgergraphic.com/
For prices in Europe, try: http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/lenses.htm
There are doubless others.
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Usability of process camera lenses for LF
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 2
76266.333@compuserve.com (Dan Fromm) wrote:
>dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow) wrote
>snip
>> These are probably four element lenses similar to the Apochromatic
>> Artar. The coverage given by the manufacturer for process lenses is
>> conservative since the image quality must be exceedingly high. For
>> pictorial purposes its usually somewhat larger. Four element air
>> spaced lenses of the Dialyte type do not have large image circles.
>> Generally the diameter at infinity focus is about equal to the focal
>> length.
>> While they are optimised for around 1:1 magnification the
>> corrections are fairly stable with object distance. The main
>> aberration to appear is coma which is proportional to the stop. When
>> stopped down to typical openings the coma will be gone. Optimum stop
>> is usually around f/22. Coverage is not increased by stopping down as
>> it is in many other lens designs.
>> They will certainly work as enlarging lenses but will also work well
>> for infinity focus uses. Konica has an excellent reputation for
>> quality optics.
>> Probably the best solution to a shutter is to adapt a large standard
>> shutter so that the lenses can be mounted on its front. That way you
>> can use a single shutter for any number of barrel lenses. The simplest
>> way of doing this is to have a fitting for a small lens board made to
>> fit the shutter and mount the lenses on individual boards which fit
>> the shutter. This is I think a better solution than a Packard shutter
>> because it gives you some range of regulated exposure times and flash
>> synch. Of course a large Packard shutter can also be mounted so as to
>> take an auxilliary lens board so the same arrangement can be used.
>> I am not quite sure which Ilex lens this is. Ilex built a number of
>> lenses for Calumet, generally of very high quality. The speed suggests
>> its a Plasmat, probably similar to a Schneider Symmar or Rodenstock
>> Sironar in basic design. Plasmats are essentially wide angle lenses
>> with typically about 75degree coverage at small stops (f/32).
>> ---
>> Richard Knoppow
>> Los Angeles, CA, USA.
>> dickburk@ix.netcom.com
>Richard:
>
> Konica GRIIs are wide-angle Plasmats. 6 elements, not 4.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Dan
f/9 is pretty slow for a Plasmat, even a process lens. Wide angle
process lenses were made for photo-offset use. Their coverage is not
as great as a Plasmat lens intended for pictorial purposes but they
should cover perhaps 70 or 75 degrees at least.
The corrections will still be pretty stable with object distance. At
this speed the corrections for everything should be excellent. They
are probably outstanding enlarging lenses.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Opinions of the 120mm Angulon?
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002
Tony Galt galta@uwgb.edu wrote:
>What experiences do people have with this lens. It looks to be light
>in weight and to have an ample image circle for 4x5 (211mm according
>to the Schneider web site). Being an older lens I'd imagine that it
>has less contrast than something more modern. How sharp is it stopped
>down? Any tricks to buying one--a Linhoff label for instance?
>
>Tony Galt
The Angulon is similar to a Dagor but with the order of powers of
the elements reversed. The outside elements are made extra large to
prevent mechanical vignetting. Its very slightly unsymmetrical to
optimise it for infinity focus.
It _ought_ to be a very good lens, but they are highly variable. I
have one of the very early Angulons (1929), as it happens its a
120mm. Its useless because of a very large amount of lateral color,
bigh color fringes on everything. This is a fault a symmetrical lens
like this should not have at all so I suspect something went wrong in
manufacture. Others, with much later lenses report them to be very
sharp.
Even a good Angulon will have some focus shift due to the large
amount of residual zonal spherical aberration typical of the Dagor
type. Although its an f/6.8 lens it must be stopped down to f/22 or
smaller to be sharp. Maximum coverage is at f/45. Schneider claimed
102 degree coverage for these when they were first put on the market.
In fact, the circle of illumination _is_ that large. However, the
circle of good definition at f/45 is only about 90 degrees, only a
couple of more degrees than a Dagor.
Linhof tested all their lenses so the chances of getting a dog is
much less. Schneider QC after about 1950 is much better than it was
before WW-2. Pre 1940, Schneider was an economy brand. After the war
they started to build exceptionally good lenses, for instance, the
famous Xenotar used on Rolleiflexes.
Lenses like the Angulon or Dagor have little flare even when
uncoated and almost none when even single coated. They should have
excellent contrast. However, the residual spherical can mimic flare
when the lens is not stopped down.
Also be careful of the condition of the cement in cemented lenses.
Each half of an Angulon has two cemented surfaces. A small amount of
edge separation makes little or no difference, but the cement can also
get hazy and that will ruin the image. Use a flashlight and low power
magnifier to examine any used lens you intend to buy, it will show up
a plethora of problems and save you grief.
My old Angulon is a great frustration, its perfect as far as
condition but useless. Probably one of the glasses used in it was not
up to snuff but its impossible to tell without taking it apart (I mean
uncementing it) and measuring everything. It would also be useful. I
didn't pay much for it so it remains in a drawer, an optical
curiousity.
W.A.Dagors are probably a better choice if you want an older and
lighter weight WA lens.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: slberfuchs@aol.com (Ted Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 04 Aug 2002
Subject: Re: Opinions of the 120mm Angulon?
To add to the earlier comments I have had several angulons over time and they
were indeed variable. One 90 mm was awful and another was ok. The 65 was OK.
My 120 Angulon was excellent in terms of sharpness and contrast (it was a
fairly late coated version). It traveled with me everywhere until I got a 110
Super Symar XL and then I sold it.
If you find one for around $250 and can test it first you may get a winner.
Ted Harris
Resource Strategy
Henniker, New Hampshire
From: 76266.333@compuserve.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Any experience with hacking an oscilloscope camera?
Date: 16 Jun 2002
antispam@ftc.gov wrote
> Just picked up a 1975 oscilloscope camera (HP 197A)
>
> This came with a standard 4x5 Graflok back that fits my Speed Graphic, so I
> can use sheet film in holders and roll backs. It also has a non-standard
> Polaroid back taking type 80 film.
>
> The lens is a 3M/HP 75mm 1.9 that stops down to f/16. The lens is pre-set
> into a houseing that makes it fixed focus very close. This housing is
> inside a larger one and can be moved back and forth on a cam for limited
> focusing on a screen.
>
> I know that I can gut the thing and slap a view camera lens on the front to
> make a very funky field camera. But I am wondering if anyone has experience
> with that lens? I doubt that the two lens groups can simply be unscrewed
> and placed in a standard shutter. The diapragm is mechanical, but the
> shutter is fired with a simple electromagnet. Speeds are no faster that
> 1/30.
> I may try to mount the lens assembly on the Speed Graphic and see what
> happens when focused past the macro range.
>
> If anyone has played with one of these, please let me know!
>
> John
Um, a while ago I got an HP 197B, much the same thing as yours.
Couldn't find a way to use the shutter; I mean, its power supply wants
110/60 and the shutter is an odd size and shape. Couldn't find a
reason to try to use the lens in another shutter. Fortunately didn't
have enough money or ego sunk in the thing to try really hard. I
didn't think mine had a real Graflok back, now will have to go look.
My best advice is that you accept my condolences, use your Graphic in
the field, and put your HP adventure behind you.
If you're looking for a marginally usable, because the shutter's rear
isn't threaded externally, Ilex Acme #3 that probably will need a CLA
and that holds an interesting couple of paperweights, Tektronix
oscilloscope cameras are a better bet. But avoid Tek C-xs where x >
3, they tend to be much like your HP and have similar electronic
shutters.
Cheers,
Dan
[Ed. note: possible source of info on zeiss LF lenses?]
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002
From: "Mose, J P" j.p.mose@lmco.com
Subject: [HUG] Hasselblad Historical Society
Rick Nordin at nordin@bc1.com wrote:
> Pleased to see some interest in formation of some sort of "Hasselblad
> Society" ("connaisseurs/collectors/afficionados/repair-or camera(wo)men
> have an interest in institutionalizing their activities" - thank you
> Thomas). I have been attempting to put a website together but like most
> everyone else, there never seems to be enough time to do all the things that
> I'd like to. Thanks for the suggestions on web address availability.
...
Rick,
Of course you have my support, not only as a collector but as a friend. As a
collector of early Hasselblad and its accessories, along with a sincere interest in
Hasselblad throughout its history, I think I'm in a good position to provide a contribution
(even if it involves editing, research, phone calls, etc.) I am still working on my collection of
data on large format Zeiss lenses. Unfortunately, the information isn't as plentiful as
Hasselblad. It is always a treat to research information on Hasselblad, Leica, etc. since there
is so much information available (thanks to people like you!). Contact me offline so we can
discuss your needs. All the best!
J. P. Mose
j.p.mose@lmco.com
From: Michael Briggs MichaelBriggs@EarthLink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: LF Lens Cells
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002
Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
>
> I'm using a 150/4.5 Xenar (in a #1 shutter)
> and also have a good #0 shutter with no
> lens.
>
> Who sells lens cells w/o shutters?
> When I look @ the price of lenses, knowing what
> shutters go for, it "appears" economical to just get cells.
Since only a small fraction of customers will have shutters w/o lens
cells, it doesn't make sense for a retailer to stock just lens cells.
Furthermore, the retailer would have to stock the aperture scales, which
differ for different models of shutters.
The closest you can come to what you want is on the used market. If you
are lucky, you might find a lens with a broken shutter of the model that
you have -- then you can transfer the cells and aperture scale to the
shutter that you already have. Also, some G-Clarons in barrel unscrew
from the barrel and directly screw into a Copal or Compur shutter of the
correct size. Since lenses in barrel are less popular than in shutter,
you have a good chance of picking up a G-Claron in barrel at a low price
-- use patience and ebay. It is a little bit of a gamble since not all
versions of the G-Claron lens cells for barrel have the correct threads
for a shutter. My understanding is that the recent versions work.
--Michael
From: 76266.333@compuserve.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: LF Lens Cells
Date: 7 Aug 2002
dpcwilbur@excite.com (Collin Brendemuehl) wrote
> I'm using a 150/4.5 Xenar (in a #1 shutter)
> and also have a good #0 shutter with no
> lens.
>
> Who sells lens cells w/o shutters?
> When I look @ the price of lenses, knowing what
> shutters go for, it "appears" economical to just get cells.
>
> TIA,
>
> Collin
> KC8TKA
You've asked several questions.
Who buys crappy lenses in good shutters, extracts the cells, and uses
the good shutters to mount cells taken from good barrel lenses? Jim
Galli, who sells on eBay as tpahjim, does exactly this. He also sells
the cells he extracted from the good shutters.
What good barrel lenses do those people use? G-Clarons, mainly.
From: camartsmag@aol.com (CamArtsMag)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 04 Aug 2002
Subject: Re: Opinions of the 120mm Angulon?
What experiences do people have with this lens. It looks to be light
in weight and to have an ample image circle for 4x5 (211mm according
to the Schneider web site). Being an older lens I'd imagine that it
has less contrast than something more modern. How sharp is it stopped
down? Any tricks to buying one--a Linhoff label for instance?
Tony Galt
This is an older lens. The image will get soft towards the edges of the image
circle and stopping down will not help. Check the coating. If it is uncoated I
would stay away from it, not everyone will agree with this, and if it has a
single coating it would be better.
With an older uncoated lens and black and white you can make up for the lack of
contrast, somewhat, by extending your development time. If you are working with
color material there is not much you can do.
steve simmons
From: ronar1@gmx.net (j. krusche)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Process Lens Question - Eskofot-Ultragon
Date: 8 Aug 2002
Hello,
the Eskofot Ultragon was made by STAEBLE (Agfa) near Munich. The lens
is a 6-element process plasmat of symmetrical design just like the
G-Claron, Apo-Gerogon, Fujinon A .. and others. Picture angle is 70
degrees. Performance is similar to the other lenses in the group. The
Ultragon does not screw into standard shutters, but mounting in front
of Compound or #3 shutter may be the cheapest way of using this lens,
it is a very good lens !
Greetings
"Michael Kadillak" m.kadillak@attbi.com wrote
> I recently acquired a like new Eskofot Ultragon 305mm f9 process lens. It
> looks like a G Claron to me. Can anyone tell me who produced the lens, what
> is its image characteristics good or bad as a camera lens and if it makes
> economic and/or practical sense to have it mounted into a shutter? What
> format will the lens cover?
>
> Thanks in advance.
From: Jim Hemenway jim@hemenway.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Process Lens Question - Eskofot-Ultragon
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002
I have both 150 and 210mm versions of this lens.
I tried them on my 8x10 and found that the smaller covers 5x7 and the
larger 8x10. The 210 is currently in the hands of SK Grimes who is
mounting it on a shutter.
--
Jim - http://www.hemenway.com
From: 76266.333@compuserve.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Process Lens Question - Eskofot-Ultragon
Date: 8 Aug 2002
...(quote post above)
Michael, these things are made by Staeble, a Bavarian lens
manufacturer that Agfa bought in 1969. They've been sold badged as
Helioprint, Repromaster, Eskofot Ultragon, and Staeble Ultragon. They
are not G-Clarons, Rodenstock had nothing to do with them.
I don't know whether the 305/9 can be put in shutter for a reasonable
price. The best person to answer the question is probably Steve
Grimes.
I've just sold a couple of shorter ones on eBay. Had them for a year,
decided I was never going to do anything with them, and wanted to get
my money back. As far as I can see, there's no easy way to put the
150/9 or 210/9 in shutter. The 150/9 can, though be front-mounted in
a Copal #1 and will then, I think, cover at least 4x5. The 210/9 can
be stuffed in the front of an Ilex #3. Have no idea what you can do
with your 305/9.
As for quality, do a Google search in Usenet with the keywords I've
given you. I did that before buying mine, the news is very mixed. In
essence, the lenses work, some posters like them, others don't.
Typical Usenet, I'm not sure which of the posts were worth taking
seriously.
Cheers,
Dan
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Was SSL66 Lens, now Graflex Super D
you wrote:
>Jim
>
>You used the correct word "questionable". Occasionally the
>answer to the question is, "this lens is good". And it is.
>
>I never found a 127mm or 135mm Wollensak lens that was
>anywhere nearly as good as the Ektars or Tessars. The 6in
>or the 150mm lenses may be a different story. Richard Knoppow
>is a keen judge of lens quality.
>
>Jerry
>
>Jim Hemenway wrote:
>
>> Richard:
>>
>> Thanks for the info... I had thought that all of the Optars were
>> questionable.
>>
>> Jim - http://www.hemenway.com
>>
>> Richard Knoppow wrote:
>> SNIP
>> > The f/5.6 Optar for the Super-D Graflex is also an excellent lens, I have
>> > one. Its one that Wollensak did right.
>> SNIP
Specifically, the 190mm Optar is an excellent lens. I've looked at a
couple of 135mm Raptars and a couple of Enlarging Raptars. There seems to
be something wrong with the design. The 135mm lens was very sharp in the
center of the field but had excessive coma. It required stopping down to
f/22 to get rid of it. The 127mm Kodak Ektar has no coma beyond about f/8,
the same for old Zeiss 135mm Tessars.
I've encountered other Wollensak lenses which were excellent, mostly
older ones.
Optar is a trade name used by Graflex. Some late Optar lenses are
Rodenstock not Wollensak. As far as I can tell these are all excellent
lenses.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002
From: bigler@ens2m.fr
Subject: Re: [Rollei] sup angulon 90 and grandag 75 [OFF TOPIC]
> Hi Gene:
>
> What kind of coverage for 4x5 and for 8x10 would I get with these two
> lenses?
>
> Am using a Graphic View for 4x5 and a Kodak Master for 8x10.
>
> >
> > 90mm f8 Super Angulon, cosmetically rough but works fine wwith good glass $200
> >
> > 75mm f6.8 Rodenstock (Linhof) Grandagon MC in Compur, almost like new, $425
> Jim Hemenway
>
> http://www.hemenway.com
>
Jim. I know those lenses well.
The 90 Schneider SA covers almost the 5"x7" format i.e. an image
circle of ~ 210mm @f/22. So : 5"x7 is the absolute limit with 0
movements, but 8"x10", no.
I have a 75 6.8 Rodenstock Grandagon. Its image circle is
significantly smaller, i.e 187mm @f/22; So for this lens ; 4"x5" and
not above.
You'll find many things here, besides of course the manufactuerer's
web site.
http://www.butzi.net/rodenstock/grandagon/grandagon-n-chart.htm
--
Emmanuel BIGLER
bigler@ens2m.fr
From: "Donn Cave" donn@drizzle.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: lens coverage
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002
Quoth "Lazy Buffalo" lazy@nospam.net:
> I use a 240mm Symmar on 8x10 and it only has an inch or so of movement.
Yeah, I have done that. Stupidest camera purchase ever - get a
240mm Caltar S for a long lens on 4x5 that will work for 8x10 too.
Too much of everything for 4x5, not really satisfactory for 8x10.
I've been slacking on the big camera stuff lately, but the 8x10
has kind of taken a back seat to a Seneca 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 that I
got at an estate sale. It's happy with a couple of lenses that
cover 8x10 but don't support a lot of movement, the 240mm Symmar S
and a 305mm Ilex-Calumet that came with the 8x10.
Donn
From: bg174@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Gudzinowicz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Ross Xpres lens design?
Date: 14 Aug 2002
"Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl wrote:
> roland.rashleigh-berry wrote:
>
> > Art, could you confirm that the diagram in your copy of Henney and Dudley
of
> > the Xpres shows a Tessar design but with the rear cemented doublet replaced
> > with a cemented triplet?
Correct (H&D; Fig. 50). The H&D; figure resembles that of Kingslake's Xpres
(Fig. 6.7a), however, in the H&D; represenation the curves seem to have a
shorter radii, and the negative power or focal length of the front cell is
more obvious. The rear cell is a cemented triplet.
> I can confirm you that it certainly does not. It shows a Voigtlander
> Collinear type double anastigmat design, with the meniscus in the first
> triplet replaced with an "air lens".
> I thought that would be clear by now ;-)
That is incorrect and misleading.
Henny and Dudley clearly indicate that the design was derived from
the Tessar, with the Xpres using a triplet rear group to provide
additional corrections. The Xpres is listed in the Tessar category, and
the Collinear is in the symmetrical anastigmat category where it belongs.
The apparent arrangement of elements in the rear group of of the Ross
lens may very superficially resemble one cell of the Collinear, however, to
imply that the overall lens design is similar or derivitive is incorrect.
The Collinear relies on symmetry for some corrections (coma, distortion,
lateral chromatic aberration) not afforded by the single cell. Each
cell has a positive focal length or power, so the second symmetrical cell
essentially reverses some of the aberrations introduced by the first. The
focal length of the complete lens is less than that of each cell.
The Ross Xpres relies on a completely different approach, pioneered by the
Cooke triplet and Tessar. The front two element cell has a negative power
or focal length and the rear component is a highly convergent group. The
combination results in a complete lens where the focal length is longer
than that of the positive rear cell alone. The lens is highly asymmetrical
and the optimization approach is very different from symmetrical lenses.
There aren't any "freebee" corrections due to symmetry around the stop.
The history of the lenses is well known from manufacturers, designers and
patents, and is covered in most good books on optical design.
Which references did you rely upon that state that the Xpres was derived
from the symmetrical design approach rather than the triplet anastigmat
approach?
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 14 Aug 2002
Subject: 8" f/2.9 Ross Expres
This is the most famous Ross lens ever produced. It was used by the RAF for
aerial work mounted in a barrel with diaphragm. It was a design that had a
cemented pair front element and another cemented pair rear element with a
single double concave element airspaced between them. This lens was sold war
surplus after he war and was grabbed up in the US by the hundred for $25.00
each.They were bought to be used with Speed Graphics so the shooting Ektachrome
in available light became quite feasable. The rear shutter on the Speed Graphic
was used so the Ross never had to be shutter mounted. I had one mounted on a
Speed Grpahic and shot many available light Ektachromes with it including some
Modern Photography covers.. It wasn't a great lens, but it got the job done.You
can see the cross section in Neblette Lens Manual page 94 diagram 3. And as you
can see it bears no relation to a Protar in any form.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Ross Xpres lens design?
Date: 14 Aug 2002
"Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl wrote
> roland.rashleigh-berry wrote:
>
>
> So no, though both lenses are similar, the Xpress is not (!) a copy of the
> Tessar. They are each result of a different way taken in trying to design
> better lenses.
Wrong. The Ross Xpress is virtually a direct Tessar knockoff with a
weak meniscus positive element tossed into the cemented component to
get around Rudolph's patent. The lens uses barium crown glass and a
low-index flint in exactly the same way the Tessar does in order to
achieve a flat field, which is different from the air-spacing
technique used in the Taylor triplet. Willy Merte, who was a Zeiss
designer in the early half of the 20th century and who compiled
several volumes of patent and lens design data had this to say about
the Ross Xpress:
"The f/4.5 Xpress-Lens manufactured by Ross, Ltd, London, comes under
the claims of British patent No. 29637/1913. This lens differs from
the Zeiss Tessar in that the cemented portion consists of three
components instead of two."
Brian Caldwell
www.caldwellphotographic.com
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 12 Aug 2002
Subject: Re: Ross Xpres lens design?
...
>But I also read somewhere that the lens was independently designed by an
>English mathematician. I've also read that the Xpres was demonstrably better
>than the Zeiss Tessar right from the beginning which seems to suggest it was
>an independent design. Does anyone out there know definitively the history
>of this lens that they can share?
The Ross Expres is totally unrelated to a Tessar. The Ross is a 5 element
design with a single positive front element, an air spaced double negative
central element and a cemented three element rear group. The Gundlach Radar is
a direct copy of the Ross design. Coverage is in the 50 degree range and the
Expres was originaly designed to be a fast lens for aerial phography. It is of
course a British design. Thousands were produced during WW II..
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Linhof tech 180/315 symmar
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002
camartsmag@aol.com (CamArtsMag) wrote:
>Assembled at 180 it is fine. Converted to 315 the high values will flare
>
>steve simmons
I have an older 210mm convertible type Symmar. Its a good lens,
quite sharp. I don't get any particular flare when using the single
rear cell. The problem with convertible lenses is loss of some of the
corrections, especially those reduced by symmetrical construction.
These are mainly geometrical distortion, coma, and lateral color. The
coma of the Symmar single cells seems fairly well controlled although
it still needs to be stopped down to get the corners sharp.
As far as shading it, since the cell is behind the shutter the
shutter itself acts to some extent as a shade.
Overall, I think my ancient Zeiss Convertible Protar has better
single cell performance, although the Symmar is better as an assembled
lens. The Protar, like the Dagor, tends to have a lot of uncorrected
zonal spherical, which is nearly absent in a well designed Plasmat.
plasmats can also be very well corrected for astigmatism.
What you see as flare may be residual coma. It would not be
spherical since that adds in symmetrical lenses, so the individual
cells actually have less than the assembled lens.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002
From: "Christoper M Perez" christopher.m.perez@tek.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lens recommendations
An Artar would provide limited coverage at infinity for the focal lengths
you mentioned. There are many good modern lenses that are just as sharp if
not sharper, which come mounted in shutters, and are readily available.
Here's a short list of fine used lenses all in shutters that could work:
Cheap -
Kodak 12 inch Commercial Ektar f/6.3 (~$350)
Kodak 14 inch Commercial Ektar f/6.3 (~$450)
Single coated, but really fine in use -
Schneider 305mm f/9 GClaron (~$500)
Schneider 355mm f/9 GClaron (~$600)
Modern multicoated v.v.sharp lenses -
Fujinon 300 C f/8.5 (~$500)
Fujinon 240 A f/9 (~$600)
Fujinon 450 C f/9.5 (~$800)
I hope these help - Chris
"Darryl Gage" dgage@localnet.com wrote
> I need lens recommendations for a Kodak Master View 8x10. Would prefer to
> buy used and already know the Goerz Red Dot Artar is supposed to be really
> sharp, but would like some other recommendations on good lenses that can be
> had for less than $1000.
>
> Thank you.
>
> --
> Darryl Gage
From: "Jack Milchanowski" tristar1@peoplepc.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Rodenstock 75/4.5 or Nikon 75/4.5
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002
Ed,
I have had no experience with the Rodenstock 75 f4.5. I have used the
Rodenstock 75 f6.8. As a wildlife/nature stock photographer; I was very
pleased with the images that I was able to capture with the 75mm. I shot
many waterfalls with it. The only criticism is the f6.8 opening, and my
poor eyesight (with glasses often fogging up under the hood) was being able
to focus easily. I searched for and found a Nikkor 75 f4.5 and I am in love
with it. I can not determine a difference in the transparencies made with
the 6.8 or the 4.5. They look terrific to me. The focusing is so much
easier.
I also carry with me a 150, 210, and a 300 in the woods. The 75mm is used
99% of the time. Your style and subject matter, obviously, may be quite
different than mine.
Enjoy and great image making,
Jack
"Edward Candland" ecandland@earthlink.net wrote
> Ted,
> I haven't completely ruled out a 90mm and I may end up with one. I was
> thinking 75mm based on images I have seen using both lens. For my taste the
> 90mm doesn't seem quite wide enough for that nice open (near/far) look. For
> the same reason I tend to skip over the 28mm lens in 35, going from 35-24mm.
> But then the 90mm does have many advantages. No need to drop the bed on my
> Toyo field, I could get by with less expensive 90/8 because of the bigger
> image circle and also from what I understand I might not need a CF on a 90
> and most likely would for a 75. So I could very well end up with a 90. In
> the case it would most likely be a Nikon 90/8 (less weight bigger image
> circle)
> Thanks, Ed
> "Ted Harris" slberfuchs@aol.com wrote
> > Hi Ed,
> >
> > You haen't told us why you have ruled out a 90 mm lens. I only mention that as
> > my personal experience and that of many others is that a 75mm lens (I use the
> > SA f5.6), while useful, gets way less use than a 90 mm lens.
> >
> > Sounding like a broken record, in general terms there are very few (if any)
> > practical differences between the offerings of the 'big four' in the same focal
> > length with the same or similar design. I ahve not used this particular
> > Rodenstock lens but if what seems to be the case in other lenses holds there is
> > a chance (and some of this is subjective) that it will be a bit more contrasty
> > in performance than the Nikon. Now the broken record part ... buy where you
> > can try and return .. there are just too many variable factors.
> >
> > Good luck,
> >
> > Ted
> >
> > Ted Harris
> > Resource Strategy
> > Henniker, New Hampshire
[Ed. note: edited above to reflect actually a f/6.8 rodenstock rather than f/6.4 as typed]
From: slberfuchs@aol.com (Ted Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 29 Aug 2002
Subject: Re: Lens recommendations
Hi Donn,
The Apo Germinars are actually a dialyte type design. They also made a tessar
design in this focal length.
There is a recent article with a lot of interesting updated information on
Docter Optics on the LF website at:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/docter-optik.html
My only comment i sthat my field experience show a much larger image circle
than the chart would indicate.
Cheers,
Ted
Ted Harris
Resource Strategy
From: ralf@free-photons.de (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Digital - Boom in medium format? Was: Re: Used Medium format...
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002
Robert Monaghan rmonagha@smu.edu wrote:
> I'd
> bet the cost of LF kits is lowest, since so many get by with one lens or
> at most two, and often use older press graphic or view cameras that are
> very cheap, few new camera sales and new lens sales even fewer too
Just overheard some talk today that Schneider are seriously reducing
their choice of LF lenses, especially at the wide angle end.
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - K"ln/Cologne, Germany
NEW URL!!! private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
From: beasleyglb@mindspring.com (Gary Beasley)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 90mm on 4x5 Calumet
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002
Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu wrote:
>Tourtelot wrote:
>> I am new to LF; just bought an old, but hopefully serviceable, Calumet with
>> a 150mm lens. My "sources" tell me that my next lens should probably be a
>> 90mm (or so). The bellows on the Calumet are not interchangeable. With a
>> 90mm with good coverage for a 4x5 film, would I need, and are they
>> available, a recessed lens board? What "brands" would fit the Calumet or
>> would only a Calumet "brand" fit (i.e. is there a "standard" lensboard for a
>> certain class of 4x5 cameras?) What might be a good example of some MC 90mm
>> lenses (the choice seems very large) that would be in the $400 range that I
>> might consider?
>
>I am just as new as you, so perhaps I shouldn't be giving advice, but
>let me be the proverbial fool and rush in.
>
>I considered getting a Cadet from Calumet, and I went there and measured
>out 90 mm and tried seeing if I could get any reasonable movements. It
>was hard. Perhaps with a recessed lens board I might have been able to
>do better, but I have my doubts. Your camera may have a more flexible
>bellows, but I still suspect you will have problems.
I have a Cadet and also have a 65mm super angulon that I can use with
it. You get very little movement with it so it is better for
landscapes and limited archetectural stuff. I could see a 90mm working
with little trouble. You just have to be sure the rail is retracted
enough it not to be in the view. It seems the short focal length needs
less movement to produce results. Depends on what you need to do I
guess.
I'd love to hear more insight on this, my experience is limited with
the 4x5 format.
>After getting some advice in this newsgroup, I finally decided to spend
>more than I had intended and I got a Toho. I also got 150 and 90 mm
>lenses. I am very happy with this camera for a variety of reasons, but
>I am having second thoughts about the 90 mm lens. My previous
>experience with wide angle is a 65 mm lens on a Horseman Technical
>Camera I've had for over 30 years. That is roughly equivalent to a 110
>mm lens for 4 x 5. Although I like the 90 mm lens, I think I may have
>bit off more than I can presently chew, in that I have trouble avoiding
>the wide angle distortions at the edge of the field, particularly when I
>use camera movements. I might have been better off with a more moderate
>wide angle lens at this stage. Since you are also something of a
>beginner, perhaps even more so than I because of my Horseman experience,
>I suggest that you consider a bit longer focal length wide angle lens
>which also will give you fewer problems with the camera. Of course with
>a 90 mm lens, if you crop a bit, you can obtain the same result, but you
>lose the more extensive movements.
>> Thanks.
>>
>> D.
>> Douglas Tourtelot, CAS
>> Seattle, WA
>> tourtelot1@attbi.com
>
>Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
From: asfl@freemail.com.au (Thom)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 90mm on 4x5 Calumet
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002
"Tourtelot" tourtelot1@attbi.com wrote:
>I am new to LF; just bought an old, but hopefully serviceable, Calumet with
>a 150mm lens. My "sources" tell me that my next lens should probably be a
>90mm (or so). The bellows on the Calumet are not interchangeable. With a
>90mm with good coverage for a 4x5 film, would I need, and are they
>available, a recessed lens board? What "brands" would fit the Calumet or
>would only a Calumet "brand" fit (i.e. is there a "standard" lensboard for a
>certain class of 4x5 cameras?) What might be a good example of some MC 90mm
>lenses (the choice seems very large) that would be in the $400 range that I
>might consider?
I assume your talking about the C-4xx series of Calumets. You will
need a recessed lensboard if you intend to use any kind of falling or
raising fronts movements. If its just a cheaper 90mm with a small
image circle for 4x5 you might get away with it. I have been using
the 90mm Super-Angulon since 1970 and love it. But I started with a
210/360 F:5.6 Symar convertable and a Calumet 165mm. I sold the 165mm
and got a FUJI 5.6 180mm which also covers my 8x10 at F16 and no
camera movements.
THOM
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002
From: "konabear" maurert@ameritech.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 90mm on 4x5 Calumet
My shorter Bellows C4xx Calumet holds a 90mm on a flat board with a little
movement. Even will focus a 47mm on a slightly recessed board but forget
movements other than focusing. A 65mm is doable, but again movements are
small.
Todd
From: "Brian Ellis" bellis60@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wide angle lens use Master Technika Classic
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002
The widest lens I use is a 90 mm. However, it's my understanding that you
can use a 75mm lenses without any accessories and you can go down to at
least 65 mm if you buy the wide angle focusing device. However, I think
it's fair to say that for someone whose favorite lenses are 75 mm and
shorter, the Technika is probably not the best camera choice.
"Ed Margiewicz" Edmarg1@comcast.net wrote...
> I was reading the specs on the Master Technika Classic off B&H;'s website
> which stated "in general a 90mm lens is the widest practical choice for 4x5
> Linhof Technika cameras". Does anyone have any experience with this camera
> to know if this is really an issue? I am not familiar with this camera
> except for what info I can find on the web. It seems strange to me that for
> landscape photography and the price of this camera that it wouldn't
> accommodate wide angle lenses easily. Does the manufacturer have a website?
> Or does one know where I can get a brochure?
>
> Another camera I am drawn to because it seems to have all the movements
> (very similar to the Master Technica Classic) and bellows length is the
> Walker. This camera seems to have what I am looking for but because I
> haven't seen or held one in person or know if many people own them I am a
> little timid to make the plunge. If anyone has any words of wisdom to help
> this almost newby sort things out I would be greatly appreciate it.
> Thank you in advance
> Ed M
Subject: Re: Wide angle lens use Master Technika Classic
From: Bob bobsalomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002
...(quoting see above posting)
> Another camera I am drawn to because it seems to have all the movements
> (very similar to the Master Technica Classic) and bellows length is the
> Walker. This camera seems to have what I am looking for but because I
> haven't seen or held one in person or know if many people own them I am a
> little timid to make the plunge. If anyone has any words of wisdom to help
> this almost newby sort things out I would be greatly appreciate it.
> Thank you in advance
> Ed M
Their web site has many errors. This is one.
The MT handles 75mm lenses very easily.
55 to 65mm lenses on the MT require the WA Focus Device.
On the MT 2000 no accessories are needed for lenses from 35mm up.
HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun,
CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser,
Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar, Tetenal
Cloths and Ink Jet Papers, VR, Vue-All archival negative, slide and print
protectors, Wista, ZTS see www.hpmarketingcorp.com for dealer listings
Subject: Re: Wide angle lens use Master Technika Classic
From: Christopher Cline cacline@attbi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002
...
> Thank you in advance
> Ed M
I'm not sure how well I can help you with this question, as the shortest
lens I've used on my Master Tech is a 90mm. However, I do know that Don
Kirby uses a 47mm or 58 mm (I forget which) with his Tech IV without the use
of the wide angle focus device. I believe he leaves the lens standard inside
the camera body, drops the bed, and uses the back (swing-frame in Linhof
parlance) to focus. I've never done it myself so I don't know how easy it is
to do, but I suspect it becomes second nature with practice. Don certainly
gets wonderful results with this technique.
Christopher A. Cline, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Physics
Westminster College of Salt Lake City
http://people.westminstercollege.edu/faculty/ccline/
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Kodak Anastigmat 170mm
Date: 2 Sep 2002
"fbearl" fbearl@cox.net wrote
> I have been using a Kodak Anastigmat f7.7 170mm lens on my 4x5 camera.
> Originally, I believe these lenses were used on Kodak #3A cameras. I like
> the lens very much. It covers adequately. It seems to resolve nicely and
> since I only do B&W;, I have not had to worry about color.
> But it is in a Kodak Ball Bearing shutter with T,B,25,50 and 100. I
> would like to move the lens cells into a better shutter and have tried them
> in a Kodak Compur and a Polaroid Copal. Of course, (since I am writing this
> request) they do not fit.
> I believe that Kodak also offered this lens in an Ilex Universal
> shutter.
> Has anyone had any experience moving these cells to a competent shutter
> (T,B,1sec - ???) without machining.
> I would send it to Steve Grimes and have checked his web page, but I am
> on a budget with this and like most, I would prefer a quick, easy and cheap
> fix :.)..
>
> Thanks
Even if the lens also came in an Ilex shutter the threads and
mounting depth are probably different. Remounting the lens in a modern
shutter will be expensive. A fair amount of labor is involved and the
shutter itself is expensive. If you really want a good shutter I would
invest in a modern Copal rather than struggling with an old Ilex. Ilex
shutters were not wonderful when new although Steve Grimes has a
better opinion of them than I do.
The Kodak Ball Bearing shutter was used mainly on medium priced
folding cameras. It may be possible to bring it back to life. I have
only one and its on a collector's camera; I've never tried working on
it. Many shutters can be made reliable by cleaning and lubricating.
The speeds may not be accurately what it marked but they will be the
same each time, which is more important.
There are two series of Kodak Anastigmats, the 30 series, which are
f/4.5 Tessar types and the 70 Series, which are f/4.5 dialytes (four
element air spaced). The f/7.7 is also a dyalite. The last of these
was the K.A. f/7.7 203mm lens. Sold later with coating as an Ektar.
Some of the K.A. lenses are very good.
I suggest contacting Steve Grimes for an opinion.
http://www.skgrimes.com
--
Richard Knoppow
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Kodak Anastigmat 170mm
From: dfstein@earthlink.net (David Stein)
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002
Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> the 70 Series, which are f/4.5 dialytes (four
> element air spaced). The f/7.7 is also a dyalite
I have a Kodak Anastigmat 170mm f/6.3 which appears similar to what is
being described-dialyte. If you compare front and rear groups they are
not quite symmetrical but of similar powers. The lens in question can
actually take wonderful pictures (like the 203mm 7.7 Ektar it is quite
compact for its focal length and coverage) and will fit-as far as I can
determine-in its original Ilex, an Optimo Ia, a Betax #2 and a Compund
shutter (no size marked). Where to find them-look for a Kodak
Autographic 3A with one fitted.
From: sanking@clemson.edu (Sandy King)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lens Question
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002
dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow) wrote:
> "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote
> > "Chicago User" rpasenko@rcnchicago.com wrote
> > >
> > > Hi all- I've been shooting portraits with an old Horseman
> > 4x5" camera with
> > > 210mm f5.6 lens and enjoy this a lot. I've been wanting
> > to try portraits in
> > > 8x10 and have a chance to buy a Cambo Legend 8x10 View
> > Camera with Nikkor-M
> > > 450mm f9 lens. I'm not sure about the lens; i.e., will it
> > be too long or
> > > difficult to focus at F9. I find it relatively easy to
> > focus with my
> > > current lens and dark cloth but I'm not sure about doing
> > the same at f9.
> > > Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thanks.
> > >
> > > -Robert Pasenko
> > The slow speed is really not a problem, the image at f/9
> > is surprizingly bright. Its when you have _really_ slow
> > lenses, like the f/18 Zeiss Wide Angle Protar, that the
> > ground glass is dim, but even these lenses are focusable
> > without difficulty.
> > What you have is a process lens, one of a great many on
> > the used market now because the cameras they were originally
> > used with have been retired in favor of digital methods.
> > Process lenses are extremely well corrected and intended to
> > be used for about 1:1 image to object size copying.
> > Generally, the performance at infinity focus is still
> > excellent.
> > Actually, you may find this lens too sharp for portraits.
>
>
> It was brought to my attention that I misidentified this lens. Yup,
> I do make mistakes.:-(
> This is NOT the Nikkor process lens but rather a slow Tessar general
> purpose lens. They are still of exceptional quality although they have
> narrower coverage than Plasmat type lenses like the Schnider Symmar
> and Rodenstock Sironar.
If I am not mistaken the Nikkor process lens, the Apo-Nikkor, is also a
Tessar type lens, as opposed to the dialyte Artar/Ronar type. Both the
Nikkor-M and the Apo-Nikkor have a maximum aperture of f/9.
Sandy King
Subject: Re: 210 Caltar question
From: Bob bobsalomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002
Sherman at sherman@dunnam.net wrote
> "Tourtelot" tourtelot1@attbi.com wrote
>> I recently purchased a used Caltar N 210mm for new brand new foray into LF.
>> I got it at a very inexpensive price because it has a nasty scratch across
>> the front element. It is in otherwise lovely condition. Now, I am sure
>> that I will ruin many sheets of film in many other ways before this scratch
>> becomes and issue to my "perfect" photographs. My question is, am I able to
>> buy an element (from Calumet or Rodenstock) and with my trusty spanner
>> wrench, make my lens good as new, or is there something mystical to
>> replacing a front element? Or is it even worth the effort, perhaps thinking
>> that by the time the scratch gets to be a problem, I'll be shopping for a
>> better lens anyway? BTW, don't use it to shoot into the light
From: "J. Burke" burkeboyz@peoplepc.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What's your favorite portrait lens?
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002
I find that my recently acquired 480 mm APO Nikkor is very sharp but rather
hard to control focus and DOF for a close headshot (nothing new to LF). I
also have a barrel mount 19 Artar but I think a 360 mm may be a better
choice but can't say from experience. I assume the DOF and focus
difficulties for a non still life subject are just part of the LF
experience. I find my 300 mm actually does a great job for a full length
portrait.
I think even Jock Sturges (I really like those Irish children's
portraits) uses a 240 or 250 mm Fujinon lens for those images.
Keep in mind I'm new to the 8x10 format and prefer my 240 G Claron
(1st choice) and 300 mm (2nd) as portrait lenses in 4x5. By doubling the FL
for the format change I guess the 480 is closer to my preferred perspective
but using the 8x10 is not quite like using the 4x5 as the difficulties seem
to be magnified just as the format size is.
Or is it just me??????????
J.Burke
"Andrew Frith" andy@sacredjourneys.com wrote
> I'm interested in a good portrait lens for 8x10 (i like sharp
> portraits)....19" goerz red dot?
>
> thanks in advance
> -andy
>
> Matt Clara wrote:
> >
> > Especially for 4x5 format.
From: Drew Saunders dru@stanford.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Schneider APO-Symmar L lenses, anyone know anything?
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002
So, while poking about the web instead of doing work on a nice Friday
afternoon, I came across, on the Badger page, listings (without prices
or details yet) for new Schneider APO-Symmar L series lenses. The blurb
on Badger's page is:
"The Apo-Symmar-L series of lenses replaces the well-proven Apo-Symmar
series without the "L". Schneider-Kreuznach has now completely
re-designed this successful, all-purpose lens to bring it up to the
current state-of-the-art of lens design and fabrication. The covering
power has been expanded in nearly all cases and the imaging performance
further optimized. The current focal lengths and the principle technical
specifications are shown in the table below. Used according to the
maximum photo format, the focal lengths between 120 and 480 mm offered
by the new "L-Series" deliver normal perspective pictures without wide
angle or telephoto effects. "
No details on each lens, and nothing on the Schneider web pages. Anyone
know more about these?
It's nice to know that my 120 APO-Symmar, which I enjoy very much and
will use for a long time, now lost a whole bunch of resale value. Oh
well, I guess I'll just have to use it.
Drew
--
Drew W. Saunders
Subject: Re: Schneider APO-Symmar L lenses, anyone know anything?
From: Bob bobsalomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002
...(quotes drew above)
75Y coverage like the Apo Sironar S rather then 72Y like the Apo Symmar.
HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun,
CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser,
Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar, Tetenal
Cloths and Ink Jet Papers, VR, Vue-All archival negative, slide and print
protectors, Wista, ZTS see www.hpmarketingcorp.com for dealer listings
From: Michael Briggs MichaelBriggs@EarthLink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Schneider APO-Symmar L lenses, anyone know anything?
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002
Drew Saunders wrote:
>
> So, while poking about the web instead of doing work on a nice Friday
> afternoon, I came across, on the Badger page, listings (without prices
> or details yet) for new Schneider APO-Symmar L series lenses. The blurb
> on Badger's page is:
.............
> No details on each lens, and nothing on the Schneider web pages. Anyone
> know more about these?
The information on Badger's site is an excerpt of the information in
English at the German website of Schneider:
http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/neuheiten/sr_apl_e.htm
Mostly the coverage is expanded to 75 degrees. Depending on the focal
length and format, this may or may not be a useful difference from the
previous Apo-Symmar lenses. As Bob S. indicated, these designs are
probably a reaction to the competition of the Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S
lenses, which already have 75 degree coverage. A difference in strategy
of the two companies is that Rodentock sells two lines of Apo-Sironars,
the N and S, while the information from Schneider says that the previous
Apo-Symmars are being replaced, i.e., they will sell only one line.
Some other new lens designs are described at:
http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/photokina/news_2002_e.htm
--Michael
From: "Brian Ellis" bellis60@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.large-format
Subject: Re: Schneider-Kreuznach 90mm Question
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002
It's always unfortunate to see such incorrect information presented with
such seeming authority. Every Schneider lens that is multi coated says
"multicoating" or "multicoated" somewhere around the perimeter of the lens.
The writing is in large letters, often in red letters, so you can't miss it.
That's as true today as it was 30 years ago.
"Victor E. Falkteg" falkteg@brevet.nu wrote
> The answer depends on how old the lens is. If it's old I agree with Michael.
> But if it's new it probably is multicoted. Nobody writes "multicoted" on
> lenses anymore bacause all lenses produced are multicoted.
>
> //Victor
From: sahamley@netscape.net (Steve Hamley)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Digital - Boom in medium format? Was: Re: Used Medium format...
Date: 4 Sep 2002
Ralf,
Interesting comment, and possibly true. I have heard that lens
companies are phasing out lead in optical glass because of
environmental concerns - not that anyone believes the landfills are
going to end up full of LF lenses. Heck, most of the ones from the
1920s are still around taking photographs. Anyway, I've also hard that
reformulating the glass means reformulating the design, which makes
sense.
According to posts on the LF forums, both Schneider and Rodenstock
have dropped models of their repro lines, namely the G-Clarons and the
barrel-mount Apo-Ronars. One of the reasons speculated on is that they
didn't want to reformulate these lenses since most repro work is going
digital.
If the above speculation is true, and the newly intoduced Super Symmar
XL aspheric series doesn't use the dreaded lead, I'd look for these
lenses to replace other Schneider wide angles. These lenses have been
a great success, especially the 110mm Super Symmar XL. I have the 80mm
f/4.5 version, and it's amazingly bright, suffers less from falloff
than others, better up close, and is smaller and lighter to boot.
People who backpack have replaced both a 75mm and a 90mm with this
lens. Schneider did their homework on these and I suspect they will
replace some other Schneider wide angles by popular demand.
Thanks!
Steve
sahamley@yahoo.com
ralf@free-photons.de (Ralf R. Radermacher) wrote
> Robert Monaghan rmonagha@smu.edu wrote:
>
> > I'd
> > bet the cost of LF kits is lowest, since so many get by with one lens or
> > at most two, and often use older press graphic or view cameras that are
> > very cheap, few new camera sales and new lens sales even fewer too
>
> Just overheard some talk today that Schneider are seriously reducing
> their choice of LF lenses, especially at the wide angle end.
>
> Ralf
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lens Question
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002
"Chicago User" rpasenko@rcnchicago.com wrote>
> Hi all- I've been shooting portraits with an old Horseman 4x5" camera with
> 210mm f5.6 lens and enjoy this a lot. I've been wanting to try portraits in
> 8x10 and have a chance to buy a Cambo Legend 8x10 View Camera with Nikkor-M
> 450mm f9 lens. I'm not sure about the lens; i.e., will it be too long or
> difficult to focus at F9. I find it relatively easy to focus with my
> current lens and dark cloth but I'm not sure about doing the same at f9.
> Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thanks.
> -Robert Pasenko
The slow speed is really not a problem, the image at f/9
is surprizingly bright. Its when you have _really_ slow
lenses, like the f/18 Zeiss Wide Angle Protar, that the
ground glass is dim, but even these lenses are focusable
without difficulty.
What you have is a process lens, one of a great many on
the used market now because the cameras they were originally
used with have been retired in favor of digital methods.
Process lenses are extremely well corrected and intended to
be used for about 1:1 image to object size copying.
Generally, the performance at infinity focus is still
excellent.
Actually, you may find this lens too sharp for portraits.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From zeiss interest group mailing list:
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002
From: Arthurwg@aol.com
Subject: Re: THE ZEISS COMPENDIUM: A NECESSARY READ!
Does the Zeiss Compendium include info on large format lenses? The B&L;
Protars? Thanks. Arthur
From zeiss interest group mailing list:
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002
From: Marc James Small msmall@infi.net
Subject: Re: THE ZEISS COMPENDIUM: A NECESSARY READ!
you wrote:
>Does the Zeiss Compendium include info on large format lenses? The B&L;
>Protars? Thanks. Arthur
No. What you need is a copy of ZEISS LENSES: THE EAGLE EYE OF YOUR
CAMERA, a reprint of the original 1937 Zeiss pamphlet, available through
the Zeiss Historica Society.
Marc
msmall@infi.net
From: Robert New robertsnew@attbi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 210 Caltar question
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002
I might suggest that you refer this lens to one of the specialty shops
such as Ultraflat (www.ultraflat.com/polishing-regrinding.htm) [there
are also a few other similar firms listed on an Altavista search that do
similar kinds of things]. If your scratch is just in the coating and not
the glass, this can usually be ground off and reapplied more
inexpensively than dealing with a replacement element from Rodenstock.
I have some small experience with optics and have ground a few lenses
and made a few telescope mirrors and I think given the production
controls in place at Rodenstock and all other modern lens making
operations, there is very little mixing and matching to achieve the
desired performance. All the individual lens elements are tested for
clarity and focal properties with lasers and optical flats that can
determine the accuracy of the surface within fractions of a wavelength.
If the individual elements do not meet very tight specs, they are
simply discarded and the glass remelted. If the element assemblies are
not up to snuff, they too are discarded and the glass elements removed
and recycled unless there is a mechanical problem with one of the barrel
components. Finally, when the finished lens is tested, it too must make
the grade or be discarded. Modern optical manufacturing of small lenses
is so automated that there is little incentive to rework items unless
they can be fixed with minimal labor. Remember, even a rather exotic
lens like a Schneider 90mm XL or one of the new aspherics only has
about $75-100 in actual materials and labor involved in its manufacture.
Everything else is overhead loading and mark-ups. It simply does not pay
to rework faulty parts, even for relatively small problems.
Robert New
Dallas, TX
Tourtelot wrote:
> I recently purchased a used Caltar N 210mm for new brand new foray into LF.
> I got it at a very inexpensive price because it has a nasty scratch across
> the front element. It is in otherwise lovely condition. Now, I am sure
> that I will ruin many sheets of film in many other ways before this scratch
> becomes and issue to my "perfect" photographs. My question is, am I able to
> buy an element (from Calumet or Rodenstock) and with my trusty spanner
> wrench, make my lens good as new, or is there something mystical to
> replacing a front element? Or is it even worth the effort, perhaps thinking
> that by the time the scratch gets to be a problem, I'll be shopping for a
> better lens anyway? BTW, don't use it to shoot into the light
From camera makers mailing list:
From: "Gene Johnson" genej2@cox.net
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Nikon Process-Nikkor 260mm f/10
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002
I've been shopping for process lenses quite a bit lately. My best guess is
that in this condition you might get 100 to 150 for them. In usual used
condition theyre going in the 50 to 75 range.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Burford" tedburford@yahoo.com
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002
Subject: [Cameramakers] Nikon Process-Nikkor 260mm f/10
> I just got 3 new in the original box Nikon Process-Nikkor 260mm f/10
> lenses in a trade deal.
>
> I have not been able to find any large format web pages for Nikon.
>
> I would like to know what they are worth and what the specifications of
> these lenses are.
>
> Ted
From: "John Cremati" johnjohnc@core.com
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Process lens
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002
They have a 72 inch focal length process lens but they are very rare,
in fact I have never seen one for sale... I have seen a number of 48 inch
and 42 inch process camera lenses .. I have a late model 42 inch( or about
1050mm) Red Dot Altar with the Schneider name on it that I hope to put into
a shutter...... ... They are getting pricey as well.
My advice to you would be to forget that old bellows (maybe use it
for Halloween as the giant man eating camera...) and design a camera around
available film, a lens , available film holders , ect.... Then build the
bellows to fit your specific film back and front standard.. A bellows will
be the least of your problems in design and building such a camera or
enlarger..
All of a sudden 10 years will go by with very little to show for it
except a old bellows that has little use except for the massive camera it
was originally designed for......Focus on what you need to do what you
want to do and spend the bucks to get there if that is the case.
The only thing that I can think of to do with that bellows that might
have value would be to make a large pinhole camera ( you could also use a
cardboard box.)
Been there , done that .
John Cremati.
...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Uptown Gallery" murray@uptowngallery.org
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002
Subject: [Cameramakers] Process lens
> What is the longest f.l. process lens you folks have heard of or have in
> your collection?
>
> I would like to know what exists for the 23" x 35" bellows coming my way,
> rather than looking for something that doesn't exist.
>
> I could experiment with single elements for camera work, but enlarging would
> need a better lens....(Yeah, I know, reality check is in order, but why not
> pursue it?)
> Thanks
>
> Murray
From: "Uptown Gallery" murray@uptowngallery.org
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002
Subject: [Cameramakers] sick sick habit
Against the better judgement and advice of list members, I was unable to
resist a lens that will mate with the 23" x 35" bellows I acquired.
I know someone will be able to say...'Nyuah, nayh, I told you so", but it
was irresistible.
27" f/8 from a 48" x 60" high resolution camera.
I'm afraid it won't be very portable, however.
Murray
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Series adapter rings for 101 mm Ektar
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002
"Tony Galt" galta@uwgb.edu wrote...
> I have a 101mm f/4.5 Ektar that has no screw in filter thread. It was
> designed to take a slip on adapter ring. The o.d. of the lens flange
> is 32 mm. I'd guess it would take series 5 rings. Does anyone know of
> a good source for such a slip-on ring. I know that Steve Grimes will
> make me one, but I think the price he would want to do that would be a
> large proportion of the value of the lens and shutter, and I can't
> afford that.
>
> Tony Galt
The 10lmm Ektar takes a 33mm adaptor for Series VI
filters, the same size as used on the 127mm Ektar common on
4x5 Speed Graphics.
Try folks like Steven Shuart or Midwest Photo who have
lots of LF stuff, they should have an old Kodak adaptor. Get
a lens shade with it if you can.
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Series adapter rings for 101 mm Ektar
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002
...
I double checked my last post. My oldest Kodak handbook
shows the size for the 101mm lens to be 1-1/4" or 31.5mm for
Series VI filters. The later booklets show 1-5/16ths" or
33mm for Series VI filters.
The adaptor I have for my uncoated 101mm Ektar is a 31.5mm
taking Series V filters. I don't have anything to cross
check the Kodak booklets. Its possible that the mount size
was changed at some point although other lenses in this
series are the same throughout their time of manufacture.
Its possible that both the size of the adaptor and size of
filter are misprints carried through succeeding editions of
the handbook.
Since my lens takes a 31.5mm adaptor for Series V filters
I suspect _those_ are the correct sizes
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Ross lens query
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002
"Pete W." pete@(yourpants)squidlydid.freeserve.co.uk wrote
> Hi,
> I'm new here and just dropping in to see if anyone can help me identify this Ross lens
> I've had kicking around the place for a number of years.
> It is physically 5in long and 3.5in dia. It is brass, with a focus sleeve but no iris or
> shutter. It is engraved: "Ross, London, 16950, No.3.C.deV." and then opposite: "Sold by
> Watson & Son, 313 High Holborn, London".
>
> I wondered if it could be for an enlarger or is it a big 'ol camera lens?
>
> Thanks in advance, remove "yourpants" to reply direct.
>
> Pete W
I have no specific information on the lens but it is
probably a projection lens for a magic lantern or possibly a
motion picture projector. You can get an approximate measure
of its focal length from focusing it on a very distant
object and measuring to about the center of the lens. You
may be able to get an idea of the construction by shining a
flashlight through it and counting reflections. Glass-air
reflections are bright (especially in uncoated lenses)
cemented surfaces are dim, but visible.
Ross was a very well known English lens maker. The curious
thing is that W.Watson & Sons was also a well known maker,
definitely the same because of the High Holborn street
address.
A lens meant for use on a camera or enlarger would have an
iris diaphragm on it. Unless the lens has been mutilated in
some way my guess is a projection lens. Focal length would
be approximately twice the diagonal of the format its
intended for. Lantern slide plates were about 3x5 inches so
the lens may have a focal length of around 9 inches.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Ilex lens info?
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002
"Mark Baylin" bp171@FreeNet.Carleton.CA wrote
> Hi there, I was wondering if anyone could pass along any
> info on a lens that has recently come into my possesion. It's
> an Ilex Acuton convertable lens (8.5 and 14 inch). I was
> wondering if the lens is known to be of decent quality and
> what film formats it should cover??
>
> Thanks for any help!!!
>
> mark
Someone else may have more definite information but I
suspect this is the same lens Ilex made under contract for
Calumet. If so, its similar to the Schneider Convertible
Symmar. The short focal length will be for the entire lens,
the longer FL for the rear element alone.
If I am right the lens is of the modern Plasmat design and
should have very good to excellent performance as a combined
lens. The single cells of convertible lenses are not as good
as the complet lens since some aberrations are cancelled by
the symmetry or near symmetry of the assembled lens.
However, the single rear cell of my old convertible Symmar
is pretty good although I think my even older (1920's) Zeiss
Convertible Protar is a little better.
The coverage of single convertible cells is not large.
They have about the same image diameter as the complete
lens. If I am right about this lens the complete lens is
somewhat wide angle, a coverage of perhaps 75 to 80 degrees,
the single cell having about half this. The complet lens is
about f/5.6, the single cell about f/12.5
Ilex sold most, if not all, of the lenses it built OEM for
Calumet on the general market under its own trade names.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Focal length and coverage?
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002
"Leonard Evens" len@math.northwestern.edu wrote
> In looking at lens specifications, I'm a bit confused how you tell which
> lens might be appropriate for which format. For example, a 300 mm lens
> would be long for 4 x 5 and normal for 8 x 10. One can tell something
> about which format a particular lens would be good for from the size of
> the image circle. But presumably, other things being equal, a lens
> designed to cover an 8 x 10 negative with some room for movements would
> be able to sacrifice some resolution when compared to a lens designed
> for 4 x 5, also with some movement. How does one tell what the optimum
> format for a given lens might be?
> --
> Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
There are two ways of classifying a lens. One is the ratio
of its focal length to the size of the format, the other is
the ratio of the focal length to the image circle.
The first controls the angle of view for a given format,
the other the limit on the size of format the lens will
cover.
The first is rather arbitrary. Generally a lens is
considered "normal" if its focal length is approximatelly
equal to the diagonal of the format. This is an angle of
view of about 53degrees. This is really based on the idea
that the perspective of a print will be correct when viewed
from a distance equal to the focal length of the taking
lens, multiplied by whatever magnification or reduction has
been applied in printing.
A lens with a shorter FL is a wide angle lens, one with a
longer FL is a long-focus lens (sometimes called telephoto,
but that really refers to a special design of lens).
Now, the other way of classifying lenses has to do with
the ratio of the size of the image circle to the focal
length. This is a matter of design. Generally, lenses
intended to project an image circle at infinity focus of
much more than a diameter equal to their focal length are
considered wide angle lenses. Those intended for covering a
smaller image circle are long focus lenses.
Many lenses used as "normal" lenses in large-format work
are actually wide angle lenses by design. Examples are all
the current Plasmat derived types like the Schneider Symmar
and Rodenstock Sironar. Older examples are the famous Goerz
Dagor and Zeiss Convertible Protar (when used as a system).
All these lenses have image circles at infinty equal to
about 75degrees to nearly 90degrees. The same method of
design can be used to achieve even larger image circles,
some current lenses of the general type having image circles
of around 110degrees. Even wider coverage can be obtained by
using other designs but at some point the lens can no longer
be orthographic.
Some designs do not have large image circles. For
instance, the "dyalite" type lens, consisting of four air
spaced elements with all surfaces either bi or plano. This
is distinguished from the "double Gauss" type where all
surfaces are convex toward the stop. Dyalite types include
lenses like the Goerz Apochromatic Artar and many other
process lenes, all 70 Series Kodak Anastigmats, including
the famous 203mm, f/7.7 lens, the Goerz Dogmar, and others.
These all have coverage of from around 45 to maybe 55
degrees. The dyalite is peculiar in that its coverage does
not increase with stopping down and becomes very bad
suddenly beyond a certain angle (the stigmatic point).
Lenses like the Tessar and Heliar fall between the above.
Beyond this, the designer can make compromises based on the
expected angle of coverage. For instance, in correcting
astigmatism the angle at which the radial and tangential
fields cross, called the stigmatic point, can be placed
closer to the optical axis if it is known the lens will need
to cover only a narrow field. Narrow coverage lenses are
frequently found in motion picture practice. By allowing
narrow coverage the designer can often produce improved
image quality in the remaining image circle.
With this sort of compromise one can find lenses of a type
which would normally have larger coverage designed for a
smaller image circle, for instance a Tessar type intended
for use on a motion picture camera or lenses for 35mm still
cameras.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Michael Briggs MichaelBriggs@EarthLink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Schneider 72mm XL or Nikkor 75mm f4.5?
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002
ted rayl wrote:
>
> I'm using a Toyo 45AX and am looking to pick up a wider angle lens than
> my Nikkor f8 90mm. I've been eyballing the Nikkor 75mm f4.5 as well as
> the Schneider 72mm XL. What I'm wondering is if the 72mm presents
> significant falloff to require a center filter.
It depends. Some people find the center filter unnecessary, others
necessary. It depends on format (larger format, more likely to need
center filter), film type (negative material less likely, reversal more
likely to need), how much movements you will use (more extensive
movements, more likely to need), personal taste. The only way to find
out is to try.
Most likely, both lenses will have very similar falloff, going something
like cosine to the third power. Regular lens have a fourth power
behavior, while wide angles like these are designed to have reduced
falloff. The fact that the German manufacturers mention this issue and
the Japanese don't tends to confuse people. The basic lens designs are
the same and the light falloff can't be much different.
> I'd end up having to
> add another filter size to my pack (95mm vs. 67mm) but the extra
> coverage seems worth it. I generally use B+W KR3 polarizers and know
> that that will cost a bit to add one, a regular polarizer and a KR3 as
> well as KR1.5 (everything in time...)
If you were to decide that you need the center filter, and you want to
use additional threaded glass filters, you will be looking at 110 mm
diameter. I don't think many photogs go down that route -- I use thin
plastic filters of Calumet or Lee brand.
> will the movements of the Toyo be too restrictive to make a difference?
> the only reason I can see not to go with the wider XL is the cost of
> filters. Any opinions?
I don't know the answer to this question about the Toyo 45AX. Perhaps
try placing the front standard 20 mm closer to the rear then when you
are using the 90 mm and see how much movements the camera and bellows
will permit.
What kind of photography do you do? Do you need extreme movements? Do
you tend to use substantial movements with your 90 mm?
The 72 mm XL does have amazing coverage.
--Michael
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 24 Oct 2002
Subject: Re: Hasselblad dumping!!
...
>So you wouldn't accept a Fuji lens?
Sure I would. I have owned and used many Fuji Large Format lenses and they
were excellant. Equally the equivalent of Schneider lenses.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002
From: Ralph Barker rbarker@pacbell.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Schneider 72mm XL or Nikkor 75mm f4.5?
I have the 90mm XL, and its 78mm rear element barely fits inside the
bellows on my Toyo 45AX, distorting the first couple of folds just a
bit. That doesn't allow much physical movement. The 72mm XL's rear
element is 75mm - not much smaller.
I've found the 65mm non-XL Super Angulon to be more convenient in the
45AX due to its smaller size. Even in a recessed board, however, the
bellows are still fairly compressed, restricting movements to a degree,
but the available movements still seem to exceed the coverage of the
lens. The 65mm Super Angulon also uses M67 filters - far more reasonable..
ted rayl wrote:
>I'm using a Toyo 45AX and am looking to pick up a wider angle lens than
>my Nikkor f8 90mm. I've been eyballing the Nikkor 75mm f4.5 as well as
>the Schneider 72mm XL. What I'm wondering is if the 72mm presents
>significant falloff to require a center filter. I'd end up having to
>add another filter size to my pack (95mm vs. 67mm) but the extra
>coverage seems worth it. I generally use B+W KR3 polarizers and know
>that that will cost a bit to add one, a regular polarizer and a KR3 as
>well as KR1.5 (everything in time...)
>
>will the movements of the Toyo be too restrictive to make a difference?
>the only reason I can see not to go with the wider XL is the cost of
>filters. Any opinions?
>
>Thanks
>
>Meatghost
from an ebay description:
from ebay http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item;=1376862245
eyepec@aol.com
From Kowa FAQ:
The Kowa Lens Company of Japan reportedly (per Gordon Hutchings, quoted in an EBAY
lens sale posting) made at least some of the Computar lenses for Burleigh-Brooks corp.
These same lenses were later carried by Kyvyx (after B-B folded), under the Kyvytar name,
and also offered independently by Kowa corp. under the Kowa Graphic lens line, in both
shutter and barrel variants.
The
cell of 150mm and 310 mm [Kowa] barrel mounts will screw directly into a Copal # 1
shutter, with no adapters required. Sometimes the barrel lens will come
with thin spacers. The trick is this, for center image use, the more
spacers between the rear cell and the shutter the better. For the corners
of the image, no spacer is best. This is why, in a shutter mount, we often
see one spacer as the best overall compromise. For comparison, the 150 mm
Kowa has an image circle of 290 mm or about 1 degree inches of movement for
a 5 x 7. The 210 mm Kowa has an image circle of 460 mm of about 2 degree
inches of movement for the 8 x 10. This is why we love these lenses so
much
from a posting by Don Erkel
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002
From: Ted Burford tedburford@yahoo.com
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: [Cameramakers] Re: process nikkor 260mm
Some time ago I posted a message asking for info on a process nikkor 260mm.
I did find it on the internet for those that may be interested;
http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/apo/pro260.html
Ted
From: "Leonard Robertson" leonard@harrington-wa.com
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Re: process nikkor 260mm
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002
Ted - That is quite an interesting page you found. One of the figures given
there may cause some confusion. I believe the image circle given for the
260mm Nikkor of 800mm is at 1:1 magnification (this is commonly the way
process lens coverage is listed). The lens focused at infinity would have
coverage approximately 1/2 that or 400mm. For a 260mm lens to have an image
circle of 800mm at infinity, it would need an angle of coverage of 114
degrees, which sounds awfully high to me. Have you mounted your lens on a
camera to get some idea of the actual image circle?
From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wider lens for 4x5 [100-110mm]
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002
"Gregory N. Latiak" glatiak@tekstrat.com wrote:
>I use a 90mm f6.8 Angulon on my Technika V and have been quite happy with
>its coverage of 4x5. There is even
>a bit of movement possible, not much, but some. It was a bargain when I
>bought it and has worked reliably for many years.
>It still travels in my field pack, although it has largely been supplanted
>by a 75mm Grandagon (wanted a bit wider view)...
>
>greg latiak
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/wide.htm
The 90 angulon has an even smaller image circle than the WF ektar.
While these can be used on 4X5, the limited movements these have are
.... well limiting. Also seems from their testing, the quality control
(especially the older, cheap ones) is all over the place. Of these two
lenses, I'd sugest the WF ektar for it's better sample to sample
performance and larger image circle but would hold out for something
with a 200mm+ image circle instead of either of these for 4X5.
Stacey
From: "fbearl" fbearl@cox.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wider lens for 4x5 [100-110mm]
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002
...(quotes above post by Stacey)
I will make this suggestion for the low budget people. The 105mm Tominon in
Copal shutter from the industrial Polaroids will "cover" 4x5 with some small
movements. You may find it gets a little dark in the corners. On the other
hand, you can pick these up for $25 on EBay and try it out. If you don't
think it works well enough you can put it on that 6x9 folder and have a
sharp coated lens on the old folder.
From: "Sherman" sherman@dunnam.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Finally taking the plunge...
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002
"Two23" two23@aol.com wrote
> About the Caltar = Rodenstock thing. That applies to current lenses. The
> Caltar II N lineup is the same as the Rodenstock Sironar N lineup. You can
> save substantial money by purchasing the Caltars and even more if you get
> them used.
>
> As I recall, aren't some Caltars also the less expensive Geronar
versions?
>
>
>
> Kent in SD
Yes, those are labeled "II e". I have a Caltar IIe 150mm 6.3 that is a
Geronar. It is very small, light and sharp. I use it more for close work
than any other lens but it is also a fine performer at infinity.
Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com
From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Date: 24 Nov 2002
Subject: Re: AeroJet Delft old aircraft reconnisance lens info?
Hi
It would be very unusal for a 12 inch f1.5 lens to be used for aerial recon. I
think it's a wide field star map lens. So the lens looks up to the heavens
rather then down on the earth.
An original cost for a lens like this would be in excess of $30,000 in mid 70's
money. It most likely has at least 8 elements in it to correct for color,
distoration and so on.
Larry
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002
From: "Christoper M Perez" christopher.m.perez@tek.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: which lens?
Fuji lenses are consistantly fine, nearly regardless of model or year.
Schneider Symmar-series are also consistantly fine. Rodenstock's APO
Sironar-S have proven good lenses as well. And so the mind burbles.
If price is a concern, 210mm Schneider Symmar-S/MC lenses are consistantly
sharp and relatively cheap (~$400).
If size is a concern, then one of the following might be useful:
- Nikon 200 M f/8 is nice, small (#0 Copal), and sharp but not much 5x7
movement (~$500 used)
- Fuji 240 A f/9 is v.small (copal #0), v.light, and v.v.sharp, LOTS of 5x7
movement (~$500 used - shop carefully)
If money is no object and size not a concern -
- Schneider APO Symmar 210mm (check out Robert White for the best prices on new)
- Rodenstock APO Sironar-S 210mm (again, check Robert White first)
For less than $1,000 total, if you shop used equipment carefully
(http://www.mpex is one source), I'll bet you could find a really nice 180mm
Schneider Symmar-S/MC f/5.6 and slightly longer 240 Schneider GClaron f/9 or
300mm Nikkor M or Fuji C. But this is when the mind starts you
a-twitching...
I hope this helps, rather than confuses.
- Chris
"Paul Masincup" pfmasin@optonline.net wrote
> The old lens on my camera is not giving me good results and must be
> replaced. Being new to large format, I'm in a bit of a quandary about
> which lens is best for my situation. I have a 5X7 Seneca camera (it's
> old, but it looks good and it works) with a rear rail so I have plenty
> of extension. I think a 210mm should be right but there are so many
> choices. I don't want to spend too much (I'm already in the doghouse for
> buying the camera). I'd like to keep it under $1000. I've always been a
> fan of Nikon having used their 35mm for at least 30 years, so I'm
> thinking the Nikon W 210/5.6. But then some told me that I'd be better
> off with the Schneider APO Symmar. Then I'm looking through the internet
> and come across Rodenstock with Ronar, Sironar, and Geronar. Of course,
> there is always Fujinon CMW...this is where I start to babble and
> twitch. Is there any consensus out there?
>
> Thanks
> Paul Masincup
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002
From: "konabear" maurert@ameritech.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: which lens?
Perhaps I've missed an earlier topic from you Paul. What kind of results
with the old lens are frustrating you?
Old lenses often can be improved with a thorough yet careful cleaning of all
elements. This can dramatically increase contrast and apparent sharpness.
Sometimes the lens isn't at fault. Are you absolutely sure your camera
isn't shaking on its tripod? A 5x7 is a large camera, you say you're new to
large-format. Get your loupe out and check fine detail for evidence of
motion blurring. If you didn't upgrade you tripod at the same time, then
try weighting down the tripod, protecting it from the wind, etc.
Also if you're new to the format, remember that depth of field is much
shallower for a given view than it is in a smaller format.
Are you focusing on the ground glass? Are you using a loupe when focusing?
Is it the shutter given you grief? Shutters can be repaired for a fraction
the cost of a new lens in shutter.
What I have gathered from reading this group for the last several years, is
if you typically stop drop to the middle stops of the lens, if you don't
shoot into strong light sources, then it is diffcult to tell the difference
in final image quality between most post WWII optics. This includes even
the most modern lens.
The more modern lens allow for: larger image circles, sharper images as the
larger apertures are used, better corner sharpness, less flare, and more
contrast. (And some people prefer a lens with less contrast.)
The other problem may be you're stopping down too far. Large format lenses
tend to be diffraction limited. If the smaller apertures are used, depth of
field increases but sharpness degrades. What diameter apperture this
happens at is unique to each lens.
My big point is that you are new to large-format and based on what you've
shared I can't say the lens is the problem. So can't recommend that you
drop another $300-$1000 on a different lens. You might and then might find
yourself with the same results and then your wife will *REALLY* be upset! ;)
Todd
From: mikecham@teleport.com (Michael Chambers)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: which lens?
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002
With cameras of the Seneca vintage, it can be very important to check that
the position of the ground-glass plane is identical with the position of
the film plane. Older cameras were not necessarily made to the modern
"Fidelity standard", and so _all_ of your negatives might possibly be out
of focus, modern lens or vintage. I owned a lovely black "Improved Seneca"
view it was light-weight and a treat to use, but I had to shim the
groundglass about 1/16" for the groundglass and film planes to be the
same. I recommend you check this first before trashing your vintage lens.
Can do it with a caliper, or even a make-shift jig of some kind will show
you a significant error. 1/16" is a big deal of a focus error!
As for the choice of a 210mm purchase, I would tend to favor covering power
over resolving power since you're shooting 5X7. With this in mind, if
price-tag is a major issue in the choice of a lens, I might narrow the
field down to a nice used Schneider G-claron (f9), or a Computar
Symmetrigon (f6.3). I own two of the latter, a 180 and a 210, and use a
G-claron as well. The Computar Symmetrigons are a four-glass lens of the
Gauss type, exhibit _significantly_ greater than average coverage, come in
Copal #1's, have dandy coatings, and are as "sharp" as Symmars I have
owned. (They are a different lens than the f9 Computar lenses so highly
prized by ultr-large format users). They're real sleepers, and can be had
for between $250-$400 in terrific shape. I think they are not well known
because they were not manufactured over a long period of time, and never
marketed very heavily in the States.
I don't want to engender any big arguments here, but for many users, newer
and more expensive is not necessarily better. Different lenses have
different looks about them. You might find, for example, that you like the
look of a G-Claron or a Dagor better than the most advanced recent lenses
from any of the pre-eminent manufacturers. Users often tend to be loyal to
a particular manufacturer for this reason, I think.
Anyway, hope this helps a little, and a hearty welcome to the world of
large format.
Best,
Mike
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Congo Lens?
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002
Nick Zentena wrote:
> Right now I have a 150mm Xenar F4.5 and an old Zeiss 24cm process lens.
> The hope is to add something wider and I figure some time something longer.
> I've basically decided I can handle a process lens for the longer lens.
> Sooner or later I'll cave and get a new packard shutter.
>
> For the wider I'm limited by my cameras. The Calumet measures 3 3/4"
> with everything tight [90+mm I guess]. Even if I got a lensboard that could
> fit a 90mm to the camera with everything that tight it would mean no
> movements at all. The older graflex view camera can handle 90mm with a flat
> board but I'd rather a lens that would work on either camera. Of course if I
> got something really cheap then I'd manage.
>
> A 105mm would be the shortest that would work I think but they don't
> seem to cover. So I think I should be looking at a 120mm. I am worried that
> it might be too close to the Xenar but I figure I can sort of use it like a
> slightly wide normal. The Xenar works well enough but the shutter could use
> some adjustment.
>
Nick,
The link I posted in my previous reply:
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/wide.htm
also has some info on the 100mm WF Ektar, 90mm Angulon and other
alternatives. Keep in mind that that particular page is part of the
Lightweight Lenses section of my web site - so all recommendations and
comments are biased towards lightweight options. Still, given your
other requirements, a 100mm WF Ektar might not be a bad choice. It will
be of comparable age and quality to your 150mm Xenar. Like your Xenar,
it will cover 4x5 and allow for modest movement (image circle of 183mm).
n more modern lenses, my first choice is the 110mm Super Symmar XL. It
is truly one of the best LF lenses ever made. If it's not in your price
range, the 90mm f8 Nikkor SW is another modern wide angle lens I highly
recommend. Keep in mind that either of these lenses will offer way more
coverage than your Calumet can provide. For more on these two, see:
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm
Another good option in the 90mm focal length is the rcently discontinued
90mm f8 Super Angulon. This lens was in production for over 45 years.
So, there is a ton of them on the used market. Until the late 1970s, it
was single coated. Later multicoated versions are clearly labeled
"Multicoating" and sell for more than older single coated samples. If
you shop around, you can probably find one to match you budget.
In the 105mm focal length, other than the 105mm f8 Fujinon W (250mm
image circle), only a couple lenses cover 4x5, and then without much to
spare. Probably the best option would be the current 105mm Fujinon CM-W
(174mm image circle). Problem is they aren't very common. So, they are
hard to find on the used market, and for what they sell for new, you
could buy a used 90mm f8 Nikkor SW or multicoated 90mm f8 Super Angulon.
Hope that helps.
Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann - Large Format Images of Nature
http://www.thalmann.com/
Kerry's Large Format Homepage
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/
From: Nick Zentena zentena@hophead.dyndns.org
Subject: Re: Congo Lens?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002
John john@darkroompro.com wrote:
> On a positive note, I see that Badger Graphic is selling the Congo's. I'm
> a little astonished but perhaps they have a good arangement with the company
> that makes them.
With prices little more then a new shutter. That's what got me looking at them.
Nick
From: Bob Salomon bob@hpmarketingcorp.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: How good are large format lenses for medium format?
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002
> Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu wrote
> > I just used my new Fuji 300 mm lens to experiment with a "self
> > portrait". Since I couldn't be sure of the focus I got a good ways
> > back, about 11 feet. As a result I cropped the 4 x 5 negative to a
> > little over half size. I was surprised by the high quality of the image
> > but I didn't make any systematic comparisons with any medium format lenses.
> >
> > Generally, how do good quality lenses designed for 4 x 5 with movements
> > compare to comparable focal length medium format lenses of average quality?
>
> Leonard, I shoot a 160/5.6 Pro Raptar and a 210/9 Konica Hexanon GRII
> on 2.25 x 3.25, which is sort of the upper limit of medium format.
> They're both great, the Pro Raptar is every bit as good as my 101/4.5
> Ektar.
>
> I've shot the GRII against a 200/4 MicroNikkor AIS on 135, it beats
> the MicroNikkor at 1:2 @f/11 and f/16, ties it @ f/8.
> I also shoot a 38/4.5 Biogon on 2x3 (doesn't cover). Its greater than
> the other lenses I use on 2x3, but then its an exceptional optic even
> for 2.25 x 2.25.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dan
It isn't current but the German magazine Color Foto in an article in the
3/92 issue did a test of all MF cameras available then and a Linhof
Super Technika V, 23b with a Rodenstock Grandagon 65mm 4.0, a 100mm
Sironar n and a 180mm Sironar N.
They rated Sharpness and edge and center and contrast at edge and
center, both at wide open and f11 and vignetting. They tested head to
head vs the Fuji 680. Also in the test are mamiya Sekor C, Z lenses,
Pentax SMC, Bronica Zenzanon PG, Zeiss Distagon for Hasselblad and
Rollei (6000 as well as SL66), Mamiya G, Schneider for Exacta and Rollei
6000.
If you can not find the copy of the magazine and are interested in the
results (it is in German but the charts are easily understood) we can
mail a set of copies to anyone in the U.S. who wants to see it.
Oh yes - the winners were the Rodenstock view camera lenses.
--
HP Marketing Corp. www.hpmarketingcorp.com Ansmann, Braun, Combina,
DF, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser, Kopho, Linhof,
Novoflex, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar, Tetenal ink Jet and cloths,
VR Frames, Vue-All archival products, Wista, ZTS
From: M C Daily mcdaily@indy.rr.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Which focal length is the most frequently used for 4X5?
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002
While I have 90,135,180,210,240 which will fit my 4x5, I use almost
exclusively a 135 Apo Sironar f 5.6. Being trained in somewhat
oldfashioned ideas, I stick to one lens, one film, one paper, one
chemistry and try to outsmart them. I have better luck concentrating on
the image that way and can mostly ignore the tools. Just as a carpenter
rarely spends most of the time selecting a hammer... Now all I need is
the time to use the stuff I have.
Michael
Edmond wrote:
> From your experience, which focal length is the
> most frequently used in 4X5 work?
>
> landscape?
> commercial work?
> people?
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002
Subject: Re: Which focal length is the most frequently used for 4X5?
From: Christopher Cline ccline@takemeout.westminstercollege.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
I was wondering the same thing myself a couple of years ago. Both John
Sexton and Bruce Barnbaum list some technical information about the images
in their books, so just for grins I counted how often they used particular
focal lengths. This is just a limited set of raw data and not broken up into
particular subject matter. I'm not sure of what use this would be to anyone,
but I thought it was kind of interesting.
% used % used
Lens Sexton Barnbaum
58 5% 0%
75 18% 9%
90 13% 26%
120 14% 0%
135 1% 0%
150 8% 47%
210 26% 1%
240 1% 0%
300 9% 9%
305 0% 3%
360 1% 3%
450 2% 0%
500 2% 1%
I also counted how often they used a particular f/stop.
% used % used
f/stop Sexton Barnbaum
16 7% 1%
22 25% 8%
32 48% 46%
45 18% 8%
64 2% 0%
(Barnbaum's don't add up to 100% because he used a lot of intermediate stops
between f/22 and f/45)
Christopher A. Cline
Salt Lake City
http://people.westminstercollege.edu/faculty/ccline/
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Carl Meyer Anastigmat 12"
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002
"theo" theo4a1@attbi.com wrote
> I have the opportunity to choose between a Carl Meyer Anastigmat 12" f4.5 in
> an Ilex 5 shutter or a 12" f6.3 in an Alphax shutter (looks a lot newer).
> Anybody have experience with these, or can direct me to site with additional
> info? What can I expect to pay for these? Any problems shooting headshots
> in 4x5 format with these lenses? Thanks...
>
I think I already replied to this but don't see in in the
news group.
"Carl Meyer" is a trade name made up by Burke & James for
lenses it assembled from surplus parts (combined from Carl
Zeiss and Hugo Meyer both respectible companies). There are
many problems with these lenses as there are with the
"Berlin" Dagors, also assembled by B&J; from captured or
surplus parts. While some of these lenses may work OK, in
general they should be assiduously avoided. to put it
bluntly they were scams.
From: sanking@clemson.edu (Sandy King)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Carl Meyer Anastigmat 12"
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002
...(quotes above posting)
A comment and a question.
First, I am aware of the Cary Meyer story and agree that one should be
very careful in buying these lenses. On the other hand I have owned and
used two of these lenses in the past, a 300mm f/6.3 and a 210mm f/6.3,
both I assume of Tessar design, and a 300mm f/6.8 engraved as Dagor type.
All three were very good lenses, the two Tessars easily competitive with
most other Tessars I have used from the period. And the 12" Dagor type was
at least as good as several other 12" real Dagors I have used. So in spite
of the fact that these lenses were assesmbled by B&J; from captured or
surplus part the performance of the lenses I have used of this name was
quite competitive with that of other similar lenses of the same period.
Second, people may be confused by the nomenclature of Berlin Dagors and
assume that any Dagor with the name Berlin on it is one of the B&J; lenses.
In fact there are quite a number of Dagor types lenses out there that are
original Berlin Dagors, either actually manufacturered in Germany or in
the United States. Most of the lenses manufactured in Germany are called
Doppel Anastigmat, but I am not entirely sure about those made in this
country.
Sandy King
From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups:rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: What's the difference between 60/4.0 and 60/4.5 Staeble Katagons?
Date: 22 Dec 2002
Subject says it all.
I have a 60/4.5 Katagon badged "Novoflex Staeble Katagon," have seen
similarly badged lenses that opened to f/4.0. FWIW, mine appears,
based on counting reflections, to be a tessar-type.
I've already done Google searches on usenet and the web, also looked
in photo.net. All I found was that the current 60/4.0 Novoflex lens
head is to be used at magnifications from 1:2 to 2:1; this from
Novoflex' own site. The current lens is in very different livery from
mine and the others I've seen, but that may mean nothing.
Thanks in advance,
Dan
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Caltar Type Y f/6.8 240mm ?
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002
"Jean-David Beyer" jdbeyer@exit109.com wrote > Aaron van de Sande wrote:
> > From the f number you could guess that it is a Dagor formula lens. Try
> > counting the reflections (major and minor) in the glass.
> > --Aaron
> >
> > Tony Galt galta@uwgb.edu wrote
> >
> >>What do you folks know about this lens. I've never seen reference to
> >>Caltar Type Y. How old are they? Who is the real maker: Rodenstock...
> >>Schneider... some other?
> By only counting the reflections, how would you distiniguish
> between a Dagor, Protar, and dialyte? IIRC, they all have 4 air/glass
> interfaces. Do you think you could see the minor reflections
> at the cemented interfaces?
>
> --
> .~. Jean-David Beyer
By the relative brightness of the reflections. A Dagor
_cell_ has three elements with two glass surfaces and two
cemented surfaces, so it will have two bright and two dim
reflections. A dialyte has four glass-air surfaces in each
cell so it will have four brigth reflections. A Convertible
Protar will have two bright and three dim reflections since
it has three cemented surfaces per cell. The front and rear
cells should be examined separately if at all possible since
it simplifies counting reflections plus it tells you
something about the structure of the lens.
It is even sometimes possible to tell lenses apart which
have the same number of surfaces by the size of the
reflections. For instance, a Dialyte two elements in each
section which are either bi-concave or bi-convex, or have
one plano surface. In a Double Gauss lens, like a Kodak Wide
Field Ektar, all surfaces are concave towards the stop.
In modern lenses with multiple coatings, the air surfaces
are so dim that its much harder to tell them from the
cemented surfaces, however, they are usually still a bit
brighter. In uncoated or single coated lenses the difference
is very obvious.
BTW, whatever the Caltar Y is, its not a Dagor. Calumet
had lenses built by Ilex and by Rodenstock. They also sold
Schneider lenses but those carry the Schneider name rather
than the Caltar name.
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: bobjames27@aol.com (Bob G)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 25 Dec 2002
Subject: Re: Caltar Type Y f/6.8 240mm ?
>| BTW, whatever the Caltar Y is, its not a Dagor. Calumet
>| had lenses built by Ilex and by Rodenstock. They also sold
>| Schneider lenses but those carry the Schneider name rather
>| than the Caltar name.
>So the Caltar II S is not as popularly believed a Schneider Symmar S?
It most certainly is, as acknowledged by Calumet itself
Bob G
From: "Eetu Ripatti" o-e.ripatti@kolumbus.fi
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: looking for Komuranon 152/2.8
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002
Forgive me if this group is not for buying and selling, but I'm really
interested in the superfast Komuranon, the 152 mm f/2.8...
It is a big chunk of glass, and it covers 4x5" jus barely with heavy
vignetting unless stopped down. Nevertheless, I like the shallow depth of
field and the bokeh.
Are these lenses still availble? The Komura halted pruducing LF lenses at
least two decades ago but I believe there must be someone, somewhere, just
thinking where to dump his/her Komuranon in this age of digital photography.
thanks,
Timo Ripatti
timoripatti##hotmail.com (replace ## with @)
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002
From: "konabear" maurert@ameritech.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: looking for Komuranon 152/2.8
Not sure about that lens. Schneider made a Xenotar 150mm F2.8 at one time.
It does cover a 4x5 pretty well. It would be similar to what you're looking
for I think.
They come up from time to time on Ebay. In shutter expect to pay 800-1000.
Todd
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Moderate Wide Angle Lens for 8x10
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003
"Mark Westling" MarkWestling@cox.net wrote...
> I've been giving some thought to buying an 8x10 camera to produce contact
> prints, either AZO or Platinum.
>
> I have a Fuji 450mm f/12.5 that would work fine as a longer lens but I'm
> having trouble finding a lens in the 250mm range as a "gentle wide angle"
> lens that 1) has sufficient coverage, 2) doesn't weigh 3 lbs, and 3) is
> somewhat affordable.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Many thanks,
> Mark
Hi, Mark. Look around for a Kodak Wide Field Ektar. They
are harder to find than they used to be but still available.
A Dagor in good condition is another possibility, they are
not too large and are essentially wide angle lenses. Other
possible old lenses are the Zeiss or Bausch & Lomb Series V
Protar. These are quite good lenses with very large coverage
but are only f/18.
Actually, a 240mm lens has an angle of view of only about
64degrees for 8x10 and a lot of standard lenses will do
that, even some tessars. Any of the more modern Plasmat
types has coverage to about 75degrees. This includes the
Symmar and Sironar, although these lenses may not be as
small and light as you want.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: ashwood@eagle.ca (Harold Clark)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Moderate Wide Angle Lens for 8x10
Date: 6 Feb 2003
...
Another lens to consider is a Kowa Graphic. I have a 210 f9 that I got
in a barrel for about $25.00. It has substantially more coverage than
a G claron. The 240 mm version may require a #3 or 3S shutter though.
The 210 screws into a #1 copal. I also use the 240a f9 Fuji and it is
an excellent lens. A few years ago I didn't bid on a 240 Zeiss Goerz
at an auction, I didn't realize what it was. The winner got it for
about $200 Ca.That has to be about the dumbest move I have made buying
equipment.
Harold Clark
From: Michael Briggs MichaelBriggs@EarthLink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Schneider WA Componon f 5.6 / 80 mm for 4x5 ?
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003
Shawn Hedvat wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I own this beautiful enlarging lens and since my MF camera recently died and
> I am not going to replace it, I was wondering if it can be adopted for on
> camera LF (4x5) work. The lens itself is made up of two cells and can be
> unscrewed which suggest to me it might have been designed with such an idea
> in mind.
Enlarging lenses are frequently made in cells that screw into the barrel
that has the aperture diaphragm. So the fact that the lens unscrews
into two cells with the lens elements isn't an indication of a design
intent that the lens be adaptable to a shutter. The good news is that
some Schneider non-shutter lenses are designed to screw directly into a
shutter, without any modifications needed. To check this, measure the
threads of the cells. If they are the same as a common shutter size
(e.g., see http://www.skgrimes.com/products/index.htm), there is a good
chance that the cells are designed to fit the shutter. Of course, the
spacing is also important. Below I suggest a use for which you don't
need a shutter.
> Does anyone know if it can cover 4x5? What would be the
> picture quality ?
It is very unlikely that the lens will cover a 4x5 negative when taking
photos of distant objects, or even of a table-top scale set. However,
if want a lens for macro photography, it will do a very fine job. Mount
the lens so that the end that faces the print when used in an enlarger
faces the negative. Then focus on an object of the size of a medium
format negative. Optically, this is the same as enlarging a medium
format negative to a 4x5 print, which this lens is designed to do.
> Is it worth the $200 ~ $300 it would take for a shutter
> and labor ?
For my suggested use as a macro lens, you will find the exposure so long
(many seconds), that there is scarcely a need for a shutter. Just use
a lens cap, or take the photo in a dark room and turn the lights on and
off.
Since you probably won't be doing through-the-lens metering, you will
need to learn about how to compensate the exposure for closeups. This
subject is normally called "bellows extension". Also, you will likely
need a correction for reciprocity failure. See
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/
--Michael
From: "Brian Ellis" bellis60@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Moderate Wide Angle Lens for 8x10
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003
A friend of mine had the F12.5 and I played around with it some. We both
found it difficult to see much of anything on the ground glass. He sold it
for that reason. F12.5 is very small for a wide angle lens. I have the F9
version of this lens and it's much better from that standpoint. However,
both produce nice contact prints, I've never seen enlargements from either.
"sympatic" tim@KairosPhoto.com wrote...
> The Kowa 210 f9 is an AMZING little lens - beats the G-Claron 210 in
> coverage, and, I'd say, in sharpness IMO. Got mine for a bargain too (not
> quite as cheap though) Mine screwed right into the Copal 1 for my G Claron -
> just sold those unused elements now...
> By all accounts the 180mm f9 Carl Zeiss Goerz is a beautiful lens - but I've
> yet to come across one. Keeping my eyes peeled though...
>
> I'm picking up a very nicely priced Wollensak 159mm f12.5 tomorrow. Anyone
> else used one?
From: Ken kence@idworld.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Enlarging limitations
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003
RSD99 wrote:
>
> The 75 mm Biogon was available in the 1970s (and may still be ... for all I know) for the
> Linhof 4" x 5" ... and he's just going through all kinds of "stuff" to "re-invent the
> wheel" ...
See:
http://www.rarecameras.com/Largef22.html
ZEISS IKON LENS-BIOGON for LINHOF, MINT
75mm/4.5 in orig.box
$2750
--
Ken
From: "sympatic" tim@KairosPhoto.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Moderate Wide Angle Lens for 8x10
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003
The Kowa 210 f9 is an AMZING little lens - beats the G-Claron 210 in
coverage, and, I'd say, in sharpness IMO. Got mine for a bargain too (not
quite as cheap though) Mine screwed right into the Copal 1 for my G Claron -
just sold those unused elements now...
By all accounts the 180mm f9 Carl Zeiss Goerz is a beautiful lens - but I've
yet to come across one. Keeping my eyes peeled though...
I'm picking up a very nicely priced Wollensak 159mm f12.5 tomorrow. Anyone
else used one?
From: "sympatic" tim@KairosPhoto.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Moderate Wide Angle Lens for 8x10
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003
"Brian Ellis" bellis60@earthlink.net wrote
> Could you post the coverage numbers on which you base this statement about
> the Kowa and G Claron coverages? Thanks.
Here, among other places (couldn't find the others I'd read - photo.net has
such a crappy search engine). elsewhere, in his testing, Jim has stated that
he has found the Kowa to have sharper coverage out to the edge of the image
circle as compared to the G- Claron
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0049ZC
My own rough tests of the 210 G-Claron gave me about 1/2" movement at f22,
1 1/4" @ f32 and on from there.
The little Kowa definately gives me better than that
(but beware, there are different versions of the Kowa I understand. It was
also know as the Kyvitar and the Computar)
From: "sympatic" tim@KairosPhoto.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Moderate Wide Angle Lens for 8x10
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003
> A friend of mine had the F12.5 and I played around with it some. We both
> found it difficult to see much of anything on the ground glass. He sold it
> for that reason. F12.5 is very small for a wide angle lens. I have the F9
> version of this lens and it's much better from that standpoint. However,
> both produce nice contact prints, I've never seen enlargements from
either.
Just picked it up - advertised as having some monor haze on the rear
element - well, that cleaned of nicely with some Clearsight!
What a nice little lens - time to try it out soon.
As for the f12.5 - I found the Rapax shutter it's in has a screw as a stop
at 12.5. Remove the screw and the iris opens much further, viewable in the
lens (must just be soft as heck wider than 12.5).
Anyway, it seems to give about one or two stops more light - just fine for
GG work.
tim
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Schneider WA Componon f 5.6 / 80 mm for 4x5 ?
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003
"Shawn Hedvat" 1stins@gte.net wrote ...
> Hi All,
>
> I own this beautiful enlarging lens and since my MF camera recently died and
> I am not going to replace it, I was wondering if it can be adopted for on
> camera LF (4x5) work. The lens itself is made up of two cells and can be
> unscrewed which suggest to me it might have been designed with such an idea
> in mind. Does anyone know if it can cover 4x5? What would be the
> picture quality ? Is it worth the $200 ~ $300 it would take for a shutter
> and labor ?
>
> Regards
> Shawn...
>
Schneider made some of its enlarging lenses available in
shutters for macro photography. I don't know if the WA
Componon was one.
Nearly all lenses come in two cells so they can be mounted
in a barrel or shutter. About the only lenses in single
housings are projection lenses.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003
From: "Christoper M Perez" christopher.m.perez@tek.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Super Angulon v's Super Symmer
Greg,
For 4x5 work, 165 or 210 Super Angulons are a tremendous amount of glass.
Are you sure you want to carry all that weight about? Even the Super Symmar
XL in similar lengths are quite large.
If the 165 and 210 SAs you mention are truely modern, then they can be quite
sharp, but most prominently so at only f/16 or f/22. The Super Symmar
lenses will probably be sharper at f/11, but provide very similar resolution
at f/16, f/22 to the SAs. In terms of absolute contrast, the SS lenses
would probably be better than the SA.
Since you mention doing B&W;, I very seriously doubt you'll see much
difference. There are enough other factors in the system of photography,
film, development, and cameras, that these could mask lens performance
differences in 4x5 work rather quickly.
I'd strongly urge going with a new APO Symmar or Rodenstock APO Sironar-S in
the focal lengths you mention. You'll get decent resolution and good
contrast at a fraction of the weight. Unless, that is, the SA's you mention
come at lower costs than the aforementioned APO glass. Then I'd buy the
SAs, put them on the shelf until an 8x10 camera came along, and stilll buy
the APO glass. This to avoid the SA weight for B&W; 4x5 work...
Another $0.02US.
Regards - Chris
"Greg" gregpam@ozemail.com.au wrote
> I have the option of buying well priced 5 year old 165/5.6 and 210 super
> angulons from a digital intendee or is that progressee/r. The question apart
> from the obvious generous coverage is how sharp/contrasty are these lenses
> compared to say super symmers of the same aprox f length for 4x5 usage. I
> may attempt 8x10 alternate adventures in the distant future but for now it's
> 4x5 b+w. Would a print show the difference?
> Greg -- gregpam@ozemail.com.au
From: Marv Soloff msoloff@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: $100k lenses etc. ;-) Re: MIRROR LENS Special problems
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003
It seems as though the supply of 6" Metrogons (aka aerial camera lenses)
is finally drying up. I would imagine that the next mother lode for long
lenses would be the astrophoto sites. I have somewhere, the construction
document for making a long lens using a pair of copy machine lenses and
a length of 3" PVC plumbing pipe. Came from an astro website.
Regards,
Marv
Robert Monaghan wrote:
> Thanks John & Marv for the tips; SRO's offerings look interesting indeed
> ;-) the $400 6" 1000mm f/6.6 looks esp. interesting for future projects
> ;-) about 1% of the cost of the zeiss mirotar ;-) you can't beat that ;-)
>
> I've wanted to try the "big bertha" telephotos since seeing Feininger's
> telephoto shots of New York City with a view camera and super telephoto
> lens he had to homebrew. Only I'd be happy with a MF coverage unit ;-)
>
> grins bobm
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003
From: John Dillard jdillard@genuity.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Multicoating Question
In this month's View Camera, an excellent article on Schneider lenses
confirms what I had suspected, ie. my 90 mm f8 SA lens is not
multicoated (sn dates the lens to the mid 70's). Since I only shoot B&W;,
should I care? The article recommends one buy multicoated lenses, but
doesn't state why.
Thanks.
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: B&J; 5x7 Special 7.5" lens ??
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002
"Gary Beasley" beasleyglb@mindspring.com wrote
> davnic@aol.com (Davnic) wrote:
>
> >Just got a B&J; 5x7 camera and it came with the above. Have shot a couple of
> >sheets of film to check for light leaks and test lens/shutter. Image seem
> >pretty crisp with a 25a filter on Bergger 220. Looks like it could go to mush
> >on contrast due to flare though
> >
> >Any information on this lens would be appreciated and I promise to light a
> >candle at St. Ansel's temple.
> >Regards
> >Dave Nicholson
>
> Would it be the Rapid rectiliner F/8 ? I found brief mention of it in
> the Large Format Optical Reference Manual, only info is it was made by
> Bausch & Lomb.
FWIW, the Rapid-Rectilinear is a famous lens. It is a
symmetrical lens with two cemented elements in each cell.
Symmetry is important because a symmetrical lens is
automatically corrected for coma, lateral color, and
distortion. Coma is a fault similar to spherical aberration
except it exists off axis and gets worse the further off
axis you get. It looks like a tear-drop shaped smearing of
points. The R-R type lens was one of the first reasonably
fast and reasonably good performing lenses to become
available.
It was invented simutaneously and independantly by
Dallmeyer of England, who used the name Rapid-Rectilinear,
and by Steinheil of Germany, who sold the lens as the
Aplanat. Both names refer to the good correction for
geometrical distortion. Both lenses appear about 1866.
The Rapid-Rectilinear was made by nearly all manufacturers
of lenses under a huge varitey of names. Rapid-Rectilinear
was used by Bausch & Lomb for their version.
Rapid Rectilinear lenses were made in huge quantities from
1866 to about 1930, an astonishingly long life. B&L; made
millions of them for use on Kodak's medium priced cameras.
The Rapid-Rectilinear is not an anastigmat. After high
index-low dispersion glass was developed by Schott and Zeiss
in Germany about 1892 it became possible to design
anastigmatic lenses so the R-R was replaced by other types.
However, it continued to be used for lower priced cameras
for many years.
Astignatism is a fault in lenses which prevents them from
sharply focusing radial lines and tangential lines
simutaneously. A spider web can be focused so that the
circular threads or radial threads are in focus but not both
at once. I order to correct a lens for astigmatism and also
for color and flat field glass characteristics are needed
that were not available before the development of so called
Jena glass by Schott. The development of lenses was rapid
after that and earlier types, like the R-R pretty much
disappeared.
R-R lenses are not cheap to make. The cemented surfaces
must be individually polished to match each other and there
is a lot of hand work in the centering and cementing, still
true today.
When stopped down the depth of field compensates somewhat
for the astigmatism and also for the field curvature which
is introduced in some versions to help correct the
astigmatism. R-R lenses are capable of very sharp images
within limits.
Its probable that most photographs taken between about
1866 and about 1895 were made with some form of R-R lens.
A few asymetrical R-R's were made as convertible lenses, I
think there were even sets of cells offered by some
manufacturers. There were also wide angle R-R lenses, but
they were considerably slower than the typical f/8 R-R.
A note: Bausch & Lomb used Uniform Scale system, or US
stops on most of its R-R lenses, even up to the 1930's. The
US system was proposed by the Royal Photographic Society of
London about 1890. The stops are proportional to exposure
time. The US stops are sometimes confusing because we tend
to interpret them as f/stops and think these old lenses are
faster than they are.
US = N^2/16 where N = the ratio of the opening to the
focal length, in other words the bottom of the f/stop
fraction. US 1 = f/4 and US 16 = f/16. This system was not
very widely used and is found today mostly on these old B&L;
lenses.
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: B&J; 5x7 Special 7.5" lens ??
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002
"Gary Beasley" beasleyglb@mindspring.com wrote
> "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > FWIW, the Rapid-Rectilinear is a famous lens. It is a
> >symmetrical lens with two cemented elements in each cell.
> >Symmetry is important because a symmetrical lens is
> >automatically corrected for coma, lateral color, and
> >distortion. Coma is a fault similar to spherical aberration
> >except it exists off axis and gets worse the further off
> >axis you get. It looks like a tear-drop shaped smearing of
> >points. The R-R type lens was one of the first reasonably
> >fast and reasonably good performing lenses to become
> >available.
...
> Very cool bit of history there. Where did you find it?
> You could do a regular column on things like this in a good photo
> magazine. Ever had any offers? I like your style.
Thank you. It comes from several sources. If you are
interested in lens history a good place to start is a book
by Rudolf Kingslake. Kingslake was, among other things, the
head of Kodak's lens department from about 1938 until 1961.
During this time Kodak made some of the finest lenses made
anywhere.
He also taught at the University of Rochester for many
years. He is a lucid writer, anything he wrote is worth
reading.
_A History of the Photographic Lens_ Rudolf Kingslake,
(1989) San Diego, The Academic Press ISBN 0-12-408640-3
I think this is out of print now but its worth checking.
Larger libraries should have it or be able to get it on
interlibrary loan. About on quarter is short biographies of
optical pioneers.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Marv Soloff msoloff@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: B&J; 5x7 Special 7.5" lens ??
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002
...
You should also have the CEK Mees volume on Photography, Bell, London,
1936 - just to round it out.
Regards,
Marv
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: B&J; 5x7 Special 7.5" lens ??
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002
"Davnic" davnic@aol.com wrote
> Just got a B&J; 5x7 camera and it came with the above. Have shot a couple of
> sheets of film to check for light leaks and test lens/shutter. Image seem
> pretty crisp with a 25a filter on Bergger 220. Looks like it could go to mush
> on contrast due to flare though
>
> Any information on this lens would be appreciated and I promise to light a
> candle at St. Ansel's temple.
> Regards
> Dave Nicholson
Someone with a good collection of B&J; catalogues might be
able to find this lens. Burke & James was a large photo
equipment supplier in Chicago with a very large mail-order
business. They had several house brands and had equipment
made for them. Their lenses are a mix of surplus stuff. For
instance, they marketed "Berlin Dagors" made of captured
Zeiss parts assembled here. These lenses are uniformly
awful. Other B&J; lenses may have been made from surplus
parts or built on contract. You pretty much have to test the
individual lens to know what its performance is.
I would guess that many lenses will look pretty sharp if
used with a narrow spectrum filter, you are not seeing the
effect of most of whatever chromatic aberration is there.
This is not to say that there is a lot, but only that you
can't tell this way.
As far as flare, check the lens for haze by shining a
flashlight through it. If there is visible haze it will
wreck the contrast. This haze is pretty common on old
lenses. It cleans off with any standard lens cleaner but you
have to open the cells to get to the surfaces. Most cells
with multiple elements have either a threaded back cap (very
easy to get off) or a threaded front retaining ring. The
rings should be removed with a friction tool made of a tube
with sticky rubber on the end. I think a great many older
lenses condemned because they have low contrast are only
dirty.
You may have an excellent lens or a dog, the only way to
tell is to test it.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Mounting barrel lens
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002
"Nick Zentena" zentena@hophead.dyndns.org wrote
> I'm slowly acquiring a camera. So far I've got the film holders and a lens.
> Maybe the rest soon-) Obviously the lens is a barrel lens. A 24cm Apo Tessar from
> Zeiss Jena. From the serial number I think it's a 1938/39 product.
>
> I think I can just get a couple of screws that fit and mount it
> to a board that way. Using the hat trick instead of a shutter. Is it more
> complicated then that? Eventually rigging up something like a packard
> shutter for it. The archives have some info on liberating lens&shutters; from
> old Polaroid cameras. Is it possible to just take the shutter and some how
> mount that up?
>
> Thanks
> Nick
The lens should have a mounting flange. These have from
three to five screw holes. Just screw it to a suitable lens
board.
Packard shutters used to be plentiful and cheap on the
used market. They have become much harder to find in the
recent past. If you can find a suitable one its pretty easy
to mount, it just screws to the back of the lens board with
four small wood screws. You will have to drill a small hole
for the pin which sets it for Instantaneous or Time exposure
and also a hole for the air hose to pass through.
Packard shutters are still made. Shutters, parts, and
accessories are available from http://www.hubphoto.com They
sell a hose gland to fit the lens board, a better way of
getting the hose through than just pushing it through a
hole.
Hose is available from them but regular automotive vacuum
hose is cheaper. You will probably have to get an air bulb
from Hub, they are hard to find otherwise.
You can set up a large Packard shutter on a lens board
which is itself set up to take smaller lens boards so that
the same shutter can be used with a variety of lenses. You
can also have a large regular shutter modified the same way.
A regular shutter, even an old one in good condition, has
the advantage over the Packard of having a series of
regulated speeds. A Packard shutter has essentially one
speed, about 1/20th second, and time or bulb. The speed can
be varied by controlling the air pressure to some extent.
Long ago pressure regulators were sold for use with air
operated shutters but I doubt one has been in anyone's
catalogue for many decades.
For modifying large shutters contact Steve Grimes at
http://www.skgrimes.com
The Apo-Tessar is an excellent lens. They were often used
for table top work and for high quality color advertising
illustration in the 1930's and 1940's. I don't know how well
the lens performs at infinity focus but its a slow lens so
the corrections are probably still very good.
The Apo-Tessar was probably the second most often used
lens for process work after the Goerz Apochromatic Artar.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: philtobias@aol.com (Phil Tobias)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 31 Oct 2002
Subject: Re: Wider lens for 4x5 [100-110mm]
I've been thinking I should keep an eye out for a wider lens. It's seems from
my understanding of how the lengths relate to 35mm and the limits
of my camera that something in the 100-110mm range would be right. Could
somebody suggest what would be a reasonable quality/low priced lens to look
for. B&W; only. I can live with slower.
90mm is a more common wide angle focal length for 4x5. You might want to look
for a later vintage Schneider Angulon (not the more recent Super Angulon).
These small F6.8 lenses are often available at budget prices. The conventional
wisdom is to get a return policy that allows you to test the particular lens.
My Angulon is pretty good.
I used to have a nice Fuji 90mm F8, but sold it with all the gear in my old
studio. I never had a chance to compare these two lenses. Sometimes Fuji or
Caltar wide angle lenses slip into the budget category.
Another popular older lens is the 100mm F6.3 Wide Field Ektar. I've never used
one, but a late photographer-friend liked a longer Wide Field Ektar that he
used on his 8" x 10" cameras.
Hope that helps. ...pt
From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wider lens for 4x5 [100-110mm]
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002
Nick Zentena zentena@hophead.dyndns.org wrote:
> I've been thinking I should keep an eye out for a wider lens. It's
>seems from my understanding of how the lengths relate to 35mm and the limits
>of my camera that something in the 100-110mm range would be right. Could
>somebody suggest what would be a reasonable quality/low priced lens to look
>for. B&W; only. I can live with slower.
>
> I'm looking to add to my 150mm Xenar and the 240mm Zeiss process lens.
>So new and fancy isn't needed. Basic and hard working would be fine.
The small lenses in this range have smallish image circles and provide
no movements which are sometimes needed to keep a wide angle lens from
looking odd, even for landscape use. I have a 100mm WF ektar and while
this is a nice/sharp lens, it barely covers 4X5. I'd sugest saving up
and getting an older chrome barrel 90mm F8 Super angulon. I'd bet the
regular angulon will have the same small image circle issues the WF
ektar has. I don't think many of the other 100mm-105mm lenses will
cover 4X5 at all as these were made for 6X9 cameras.
Stacey
From camera makers mailing list:
From: "Gene Johnson" genej2@cox.net
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Any data on an "AeroJet Delft 12 inch f 1.5 45AG" ?
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002
I have some literature on some military Aero lenses. I'm sure that's
what it is. Aerojet-Delft along with Pacific Optical and Perkin-Elmer
and a couple others provided many of the military's bread and butter
aero lenses. I have aAerojet 6 inch f2.8 for a KS-87B camera alonwith
4 or 5 other different types. But I can find nothing on yours. It's
outrageously fast and possibly otherworldlyly sharp if it is a
diffraction limited lens like many of them were. Most of these lenses =
were optimised at the yellow to reddish end of things, but are awesome =
across the entire visual spectrum. Is there a reason why you wanted to =
use THIS lens? Is the large aperture important? Good luck.
Gene Johnson
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Martin
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002
Subject: [Cameramakers] Any data on an "AeroJet Delft 12 inch f 1.5 45AG" ?
Hi,
Does anyone have any information on this enormous lens? We need a =
spec sheet for it if possible, or any basic data you might have. We are =
trying to put it in photometer that we are taking to the South Pole.
"Aero Jet Delft 12 inch F1.5 45AG Serial number 76749"
I really appreciate any information you might have.
Thanks very much!
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
From: James Young jamiehy@globaldialog.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Process lens
...
I've heard of process lenses up to 72", but realistically think you
can find up to 45" lens. I've seen a bunch of 30" artars, and 35"
artars come up every so often. I saw a 45" artar a few years ago at
Midwest Photo. Lense and repro has/had a 32+ " apo planar. It's not
unrealistic, but the big lenses don't tend to go cheap.
Check out this web site for a few ideas
http://panphoto.com/MakingTheCameraFitTheFilm.html
jamie Young in Madison, WI
From: philtobias@aol.com (Phil Tobias)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 19 Nov 2002
Subject: Re: Classic Lens Info?
>>Anyone here know where I can find info on the different classic lenses
In addition to trying the View Camera magazine site, try some of the links
from the following site:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/index.html
There are also some tests of classic (and newer) lenses at:
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html
Hope that helps. ...pt
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Dating an Ilex Lens
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002
"John Hughes" jhughes@surfglobal.net wrote
> No, I don't have proclivities in that direction. I am wondering if there is
> a way I can determine the age of an Ilex 90mm based on the serial number.
> Schneider has this information on their web page, but since Ilex is no
> longer in business, I doubt they are operating such a service. Are there
> any alternatives?
>
> --
> John C. Hughes
I've never seen any serial number information on Ilex
lenses. However, it may be possible to get an approximate
date from other things. For instance, the style of the cell
and whether the lens is coated. Ilex was capable of making
excellent lenses. Their LF lenses were not cheap. If its in
the original shutter the style of the shutter may also be a
clue as to age.
Schneider is the only lens manufacturer to have official
serial number vs: date info available. Limited serial number
info is avialable for pre-war Zeiss-Jena lenses. I believe
Bob Salomon of HP marketing can date Rodenstock lenses but
will do so only by phone call, not be e-mail. Kodak lenses
made from about 1940 have a two letter date code as a prefix
to the serial numbers. The key word is CAMEROSITY for
1,2,3,etc., so ER would be 1945. Not all Kodak lenses have
this type of serial number. A limited range of
Goerz-American serial numbers are known.
Other manufacturers are pretty much a lost cause. I've
made a concerted effort to find Bausch & Lomb serial number
info with absolutely no success.
Anyone who has reliable serial number information on any
of the unknown brands is asked to communicate with me. Its
been frustrating to say the least.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: davidlindq@aol.com (Davidlindq)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 20 Nov 2002
Subject: Re: Dating an Ilex Lens
...(quotes above postings)
I have what is presumably the same lens, an Ilex Calumet Wide Field Caltar,
90mm, f/8. Its serial number is 3470. I have no idea if Ilex used the same
serial number series on the lenses they made for Calumet as for those made to
be sold under their own name, in this case "Ilex Wide Angle Acugon". (What is
the serial number of your lens). I purchased this lens new in October 1974. It
is mounted in a Copal shutter. As I recall (let me emphasize this is a
28-year-old recollection) at the time the sales person at Calumet said they had
just changed from being mounted in a Seiko shutter to being mounted in a Copal
shutter. If, as seems likely, this applied to all of Ilex's production of their
90mm wide angle lens at that time, then if yours is in a Seiko shutter, it's
older than mine, if it's in a Copal, it's the same age or newer. Don't know the
reason for the change in shutters. Seiko shutters were discontinued (anyone
know the precise date?) but it was probably some years later than 1974. (I
bought a new 75mm Fujinon in January 1981which was mounted in a Seiko shutter.)
David Lindquist
Davidlindq@aol.com
From: Michael Briggs MichaelBriggs@EarthLink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Dating an Ilex Lens --> dating a Rodenstock lens
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002
Richard Knoppow wrote:
> I believe
> Bob Salomon of HP marketing can date Rodenstock lenses but
> will do so only by phone call, not be e-mail.
A table of Rodenstock serial numbers was published in Kerry Thalmann's
article in the Sept/Oct 2002 issue of View Camera. The same table is
available at these URLs: http://www.bigshotz.co.nz/schneider.html and
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/4x5.htm
--Michael
From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Tominon 75mm f4.5
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002
"Ronald R." rlevand@earthlink.net wrote:
>I have disassembled an old polaroid contraption of some sort and
>retrieved a Tominon 75mm. f4.5. It has a copal shutter marked Polaroid.
>I am interested in any information anyone may have on this lens.
>Specifically, will this lens cover 4X5?
Doubtful. I have a 75mm rodenstock ysaron mounted in a polaroid
shutter that won't even cover 6X9 at infinity. I also have the same
lens in a 105 and it does cover 6X9 but not 4X5. I know the ones I
own are better for closeup work and then it does cover much more than
I need.
Stacey
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Symmar convertable question
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002
"Tourtelot" tourtelot1@attbi.com wrote
> I have a nice Symmar 150/5.6x265/12, and while I am lusting after something
> a little longer (350 maybe) and a little sharper, I think 265 will have to
> do for now. Here's the rub. I was pretty sure that I KNEW to remove the
> front cell to convert it to the longer FL. Then I read somewhere about
> someone removing the rear cell and now I am, how should I say? confused. I
> am sure that most of you know the answer "for sure, for sure." Would one of
> you impart that wisdom to me?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Also, any ideas for a nice, inexpensive (g.t. $500) lens/shutter combo in the
> 350mm range for 4x5. I have 21 inches of bellows draw.
>
> D.
The front cell is the one to remove. Actually, the front
cell can also be used alone, it will have slightly longer
focal length than the rear cell alone.
Ideally, a single cell of a covertible should be used
behind the diaphragm, however, the difference in performance
is not great and front mounting it has the advantage that
less bellows draw is necessary.
The relationship of the focal lengths of the two cells
follows approximately
f total = 1/f = 1/f1 + 1/f2 - d/(f1*f2)
Where f = total focal length
f1 = the FL of the first lens
f2 = the FL of the second lens
d = the spacing between lenses.
Note that d is not the phyiscal spacing between apexs but
rather the spacing between the 2nd principle point of the
front lens and the 1st principle point of the second lens.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 27 Nov 2002
Subject: Re: Congo Lens?
>Subject: Congo Lens?
>From: Nick Zentena zentena@hophead.dyndns.org
>Date: 11/27/02
>
> How bad are Congo lens. Should they be avoided at all costs or are
>they one of those things with known limits that can be worked with?
>
> Thanks
> Nick
They are the decentered champions of the optical world. Stay away.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Congo Lens?
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002
Nick Zentena wrote:
>
> How bad are Congo lens. Should they be avoided at all costs or are
> they one of those things with known limits that can be worked with?
>
> Thanks
> Nick
Nick,
The basic designs are tried and true (if unspectacular, by today's
standards). Basic tessar type (4/3) and wide field Guass (4/4) with a
couple teles, soft focus and maybe a plasmat or two. The real issue
seems to be one of quality control (or the lack thereof). I have
personally tested five of the WA Congos (three 90mm and two 120mm -
current multicoated in all-black Copal shutters) and only found one that
I thought was worth keeping. The others weren't totally awful, but
definitely a couple steps below any modern lenses from the Big Four. In
some cases they were not even as good as a 40 - 50 year old Angulon or
WF Ektar.
In principal, the idea looks good. Multicoated lenses in modern
shutters based on classic designs. If only their quality control did a
better job of rejecting the duds - course then they would cost more. No
free lunch. The real issues seem to be with assembly (centering, as Art
mentioned, as well as spacing), not the glass or the designs. I have
not tested any of their tessar-types. So, my comments only apply to the
WA Congos. As someone else mentioned, if you get a good one, they can
be a bargain. Unfortunately, the odds seem to be stacked against you.
Buy from a reputable dealer and ask about their return policy up front.
All that said, I am quite happy with my little cherry-picked 90mm WA
Congo. The coverage is limited to about 80 - 85 degrees (as expected).
So, I can't do too much front rise before vignetting becomes an issue -
a limitation that I have learned to live with (easily checked through
the corners of the ground glass). I ONLY use it for backpacking, where
weight is an issue. For everything else, I use something heavier (and
all around "better"). For backpacking (which I do a fair amount), it's
great - very tiny and lightweight. I like the color balance and
contrast better than the older, single coated wide field lenses. Plus,
it's in a reliable Copal shutter. More at:
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/wide.htm
Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann - Large Format Images of Nature
http://www.thalmann.com/
Kerry's Large Format Homepage
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/
From: "Sherman" sherman-remove_this@dunnam.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Congo Lens?
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002
...
Nick,
I think that the Caltar IIN series is one of the real bargains in LF lenses
today, especially used. They are relabeled Rodenstock lenses and are of
excellent quality. I have three (not planned that way but when I had the
money for another lens a Caltar showed up for sale at a great price) and am
happy with all of them.
The older Caltar 'S' series are Schneider lenses and are also very good
deals.
Do a search on eBay for 'Caltar' and check the prices against Rodenstock or
other modern lenses.
Have fun and good luck!
Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Congo Lens?
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002
Nick Zentena wrote:
>
> Kerry L. Thalmann largeformat@thalmann.com wrote:
> > WA Congos. As someone else mentioned, if you get a good one, they can
> > be a bargain. Unfortunately, the odds seem to be stacked against you.
>
> Sounds like too much of a gamble. I've been seeing older lens with
> problems sell for almost what a new Congo would cost so I thought best to
> ask. Oh well just save longer-) The light weight would be nice but my camera
> is so heavy I don't think I'd notice.
Nick,
You never mentioned what specific focal length you are considering. If
you are looking for something in the 135mm - 210mm range, there a LOTS
of choices in used lenses. Many bargains to be had on excellent,
multicoated lenses of modern design and construction. In this range,
I'd recommend ANY used multicoated lens from one of the Big Four
(Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikkor and Fujinon) over a new lens from Congo.
Assuming the lens has not be damaged, you will get better quality and
more coverage. And lenses in this range are reasonable in size and
weight. Especially good deals can be found in previous generation
products from the Big Four. All of these manufacturers began
multicoating their LF lenses in the late 1970s, so clean samples at
reasonable prices are plentiful on the used market. In addition to the
Caltars that Sherman mentioned (and I do agree they are great lenses for
the money, both new and used), also look for names like Symmar-S,
Sironar-N, Fujinon W and Nikkor W. With the exception of the Nikkor,
these are previous generation lenses, but still realtively modern and
available multicoated in reliable, modern Copal shutters. In addition
to eBay (an occasional great deal, but buyer beware), check with
reputable used dealers. See:
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/links.htm
for links to several dealers that specialize in LF equipment. In
particular, Midwest Photo Exchange always seems to have a good selection
of used lenses in this range and reasonable prices.
Good luck,
Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann - Large Format Images of Nature
http://www.thalmann.com/
Kerry's Large Format Homepage
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/
From: besk besk@shtc.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 480 mm APO Nikkor --Anyone know the filter size and yes my lens is threaded?
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003
The 86mm Lee hood adapter fits my 480 APO Nikkor.
BobE
From: "Leonard Robertson" leonard@harrington-wa.com
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] JML lenses
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003
John,
There is a chart on the JML website:
http://www.jmloptical.com/level2/index.aspx?pagename=3DProductInfo/lenssystems_info.aspx
that you may find interesting. However, so many
similar focal length lenses are listed, it may be difficult to tell
which lens you have. Also, if your lenses are older, they may have been
discontinued and not on this chart. I know there is one JML of about 8"
FL that is supposed to have very wide coverage and is sought after by
8X10 users. From my reading of the chart , it appears the 209.5mm f11
versions have the greatest coverage. I imagine the figures given by JML
are for the most critical graphic arts uses and for normal photo use the
usable coverages may be larger. You will probably have to test the
lenses you have to see what they acually can do.
As far as opening the lenses up wider than f8, I've never thought of
it, but it might work, at least for focusing. You would have limited
depth of field at f4 (although if you are doing selective focus, that
may be what you want), and some lenses do shift the plane of focus as
they stop down, but that would be easy to check. If you are able to
modify your lenses to open up wider, please let us know how it works.
Leonard
----- Original Message -----
From: John Cremati
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003
Subject: [Cameramakers] JML lenses
I have a JML 6 1/4 inch f 8 process lens and a JML 8 1/4 f 8 process
lens.. They both appear to be extreem wide angle lenses .. Does any one
know anything about these lenses , what they will cover and what type
of lens configuration is in them? The iris stops about 1/2 way with a
maximum apeture of F8 ... Has anyone modified one of these lenses to
open larger than f 8? It looks as if there is room to even get to f4
John Cremati
From camera makers mailing list:
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003
From: Michael Hendrickson mhh@pacbell.net
To: Cameramakers List cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: [Cameramakers] Re: Process lenses
Hi,
A couple of postings on the 11 January list digest prompt me to reply
with a few short notes about process lenses.
1) These lenses are optimized for sharpness at 1:1 magnification. They
are/were used in the graphic arts for critical focus work to take
original artwork (either line art or type) onto negatives so that
printing plates can be made. Take a look at just about any high quality
printing job up until the late '70s to early '80s and you'll see the
results of work with these lenses. Most of this work has been taken over
by scanners or desktop publishing programs but there's still quite a bit
of the large graphics camera work being done by firms which haven't made
the switch.
2) They are typically very highly color corrected. This means that the
lens will focus the primary colors at the film plane with a minimum of
error. This takes a very complex and exact lens design.
They are also very highly corrected to maintain proper geometry of the
subject on the film.
Current view camera lenses are probably just about as highly corrected,
or could be considered to be for our purposes, but you certainly pay for
the privilege of owning one!
3) IMAGE CIRCLE: When evaluating the specified image circle of a process
lens, you MUST bear in mind that these image circles are specified at
1:1 magnification -- roughly 2x bellows extension from that used at
infinity focus! Therefore, the image circle at infinity is going to be
roughly half of the specified image circle!
So, generally speaking, these lenses are highly color-corrected with
super-minimum geometric distortion, sharp as a tack with good contrast,
but you might be disappointed in the image circle shooting at infinity.
Of course, some will cover more than others; the later newer ones will
probably cover more than the earlier ones but this depends on design not
on age.
4) One more thing: The huge monster lenses were probably used on the
larger graphic arts cameras to shoot negs consisting of a number of
pages. When printing books, plates are usually configured with eight or
even 16 pages on one sheet; each sheet is printed on both sides. These
"signatures" are then folded, bound together with other signatures to
make a complete book, then trimmed at the edges to free up the
individual pages. So the lens shooting this large a negative would be
huge and have a large usable image circle.
If you want to know more about graphic arts camera work and how it
relates to the printing process, I'd advise getting an older edition of
this book: "Pocket Pal, A Graphic Arts Production Handbook." You can
often pick it up at a used book store or camera swap meet for a buck.
I've got three copies, each one a different edition. The first one is
the tenth edition from 1970; the next one is the twelfth edition from
1979; and the next one is the fourteenth edition from 1989. It's
published by International Paper Company. They keep up with the changes
in technology and can give you a good idea of what graphic arts lenses
are all about.
Of course there are numerous other books out there that cover various
aspects of this subject, most of them for quite a bit more money, but
this one gives an excellent overview of the whole subject and is written
in nice simple language, which is a big plus for me -- it's
understandable!
Hope this helps.
'Bye for now,
--Michael Hendrickson
mhh@pacbell.net
[Ed. note: thanks to Murray for sharing this info on these lenses]
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003
From: Multi-Volti murray@multi-volti.com
To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Re: Helioprint f/9 150 and 210 lenses
Reply from Agfa
- Helioprint lens 1:8/150
Aperture range 1:8 - 1:64
At f/8: Angulare coverage 65Y, image field diameter and
magnification 1:1 380mm
At f/22: Angulare coverage 68Y, image field diameter
and magnification 1:1 400mm
magnification range 25% - 400%
- Helioprint lens 1:8/210
Aperture range 1:8 - 1:64
At f/8: Angulare coverage 66Y, image field diameter and
magnification 1:1 540mm
At f/22: Angulare coverage 68Y, image field diameter
and magnification 1:1 560mm
magnification range 25% - 400%
If you have any other question please don't hesitate for asking.
best regards
Dr. Ralf Gro_klo_
Manager Product line lenses
Agfa-Gevaert AG
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Question about lens (Kodak Anastigmat)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003
...
Kodak made two kinds of lenses under the name Kodak
Anastigmat, the Series 30 and Series 70. Series 30 K.A.s are
Tessars, Series 70 K.A.s are Dialyte (four element air
spaced). Both were available in f/4.5 and are sharp lenses.
The coverage of a Tessar is around 62 degrees maximum at
around f/16 or f/22. The Dialyte type has narrower coverage,
perhaps 58 degrees and does not get much larger as the lens
is stopped down.
A 130mm Tessar type is marginal for 4x5 but the standard
lens for 4x5 Speed Graphics was either a 127mm (Ektar) or
135mm (Tessar and others). So, the lens will just cover
provided no movements are needed.
The Series 70 lens will probably not cover. In general,
this type of lens is used where a somewhat longer than
"normal" focal length is desirable. "Normal" is the diagonal
of the film. For 4x5 film its 152mm or 6 inches. The 163mm
focal length often quoted, is for an actual 4x5 inch image
as required by 4x5 inch glass plates. Sheet film is smaller
than the "nominal" size.
If this lens has no further markings (the series number)
you can tell its construction by looking at the rear cell
with a small flashlight. A Dialyte will have four bright
reflections, a Tessar will have two bright and one dim
reflection.
If the lens is a Tessar, and its hazy inside the problem
may be the cement in between the elements. Recementing is
not too difficult but getting the glass out may be a
problem. Most Tessar type lenses have the rear element
spun-in or burnished in, a type of mounting which can't be
opened without damaging it.
If its a Dialyte it probably has either a threaded back
cap or a threaded front retaining ring. In Kodak lenses the
retaining rings are often painted over so they look like
there are no threads. The paint will come off with a solvent
like Acetone, but be careful that it goes only where you
want. Many old lenses develop a haze inside which ruins the
contrast. Fortunately, it comes off with ordinary lens
cleaner.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: ashwood@eagle.ca (Harold Clark)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 150mm range lens for 5x7 ???
Date: 12 Mar 2003
"sympatic" tim@KairosPhoto.com wrote
> Just checked - the Kowa 150 is supposed to cover 290mm - if it's anything
> like the Kowa (Kyvytar/Computar) 210 I have, it's a stunning little lens.
>
> tim
> "sympatic" tim@KairosPhoto.com wrote
> > What About the Nikkor 150mm SW - lots of coverage and about $1800
> >
> > (another option might be a Kowa 150 f9 - anyone know what the coverage
> ios?)
> >
> > tim
I have a 150 Kowa which I picked up for $25.00 in barrel. It has
substantially more coverage that a G claron, and screws right into a
#1 shutter. I also picked up a used 150XL(more than $25) an obviously
superior performer especially where coverage is concerned, but it is
useful to be able to swap the XL elements for the Kowa when I want to
travel light with the 5x7. I have the 210 Kowa and it is also an
excellent performer.
Harold Clark
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: protar VII
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003
"Michael Dowdall" aw0l7@iprimus.ca wrote
> Hello all
>
> I was hopeing someone here could help. This past weekend I got a good deal
> on a Zeiss Protarlinse VII comvertable set. I'm looking to find out what
> angle of coverage it has, as well as possible dates on serial numbers. It
> dosn't have f-stops marked on the barrel but the apperature diamater in mm.
> With a single element mounted in front or behind the appurature blades
> effect the calculation of the appurature. Diamater over focal length =
> f-stop. The lengths and serial numbers are as follows;
>
> 48cm nr.670143
> 41cm nr.407862
> 35cm nr.656105
> 29cm nr.656056
>
> The last two cells apear close in serial numbers, the others not. would be a
> problem in them not being a matched set?
>
> Michael
There is no problem with their not being a matched set.
Any Series VII Protar cell can be used with any other,
within the limit of allowable focal length ratio.
The lenses with 65xxxxx and 67xxxxx numbers date from
about 1925, the 40xxxxx lens from about 1920. They may still
have been an original set.
This series of focal length cells was sold by zeiss as
Convertible Set D, intended for 7x9" cameras. It also
included a shutter, either a Compound or, from this date,
perhaps a dial set Compur. The shutter will be calibrated in
millimeters for the stops. A chart showing the f/stop
settings for all combinations was originally included in the
box with the lenses and shutter.
The speeds of the individual cells is f/12.5. coverage as
small stops (f/32 or smaller) is an image circle about equal
to the focal length, or a bit less, perhaps 50degrees.
Coverage of the combinations is around 75degrees at f/45
and a bit less at smaller stops.
The focal lengths of the combinations are:
29+35cm = 18.5cm = 7-1/4", f/7.0
29+41cm = 20cm = 8" f/7.7
35+51cm = 22cm = 8-3/4 f/7.0
35+48cm = 23.5cm = 9-1/4" f/7.7
41+48cm = 26cm = 10-1/4" f/7.0
The 29cm and 48cm can not be used together.
The _longer_ focal length cell should be on the front of
the shutter or barrel (in front of the stop).
Single cells should ideally be used on the back of the
shutter or barrel, i.e., behind the stop for best correction
of aberrations. However, if some reduction of image quality
in the margins can be tollerated the bellows draw can be
reduced by putting the lens in front of the stop.
This is due to the location of the principle points of
single meniscus lenses. They are slightly retrofocus when in
back of the stop and slightly telephoto when in front.
Individual Protar cells are corrected for coma so the lens
is truely convertible. Individual Dagor cells are not
corrected for coma and must be used at very small stops
(f/45 or smaller) to be reasonably sharp. Although the Dagor
was patented and sold as a convertible, it really is not
since it depends on symmetry for coma correction.
The performance of individual Protar cells is surprizingly
good. They are well corrected for chromatic aberration, not
always the case for convertible lenses. the combined lens is
excellent.
Bausch and Lomb made a similar lens set under Zeiss
license. The B&L; Protar sets usually also included a Protar
Series V f/18 Extra Wide Angle lens. This is not a
convertible and of a different design from the Series VII
although both are based on the original Paul Rudolph Protar.
Price of the D set of lenses with a Compound shutter, in
1927 was $230. Multiply this by somewhere around ten to
twenty times for something like current values.
Where two cells of equal focal length are used the speed
is f/6.3.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: protar VII
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003
...
AFAIK, the Wisner lenses were designed and built by
Schneider. They may have modified the design of the
convertible version of the Symmar but its essentially the
same lens. Wisner offers corrector lenses of some sort to
work with the individual cells. The original reason for
convertible lenses was economy and I rather think that's
lost here. A complete symmetrical or nearly symmetrical lens
will be better than a single cell of a combinable lens if
for no other reason than that symmetry automatically
corrects coma, lateral color, and geometrical distortion. It
seems to me that Wisner is jumping through hoops to get
something more easily gotten in another way.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 03 Apr 2003
Subject: Re: Nikon LF lenses
>Subject: Nikon LF lenses
>From: John john@darkroompro.com
>Date: 4/1/03
>
>Hi !
> Well along with the Linhof I just purchased came a 180/5.6 Nikkor. How do
>the Nikkor's compare to the G-Claron and APO-Symmar that I am used to ?
>Regards
>
> John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster
> Formulas, Facts and Info on the Photographic Process
> http://www.darkroompro.com
You might find the Nikkors a bit more contrasty and the image a bit "harder"
than the Schneider lenses. But not by much.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 04 Apr 2003
Subject: Re: Nikon LF lenses
>Subject: Re: Nikon LF lenses
>From: Jan Brittenson bson@rockgarden.net
>Date: 4/3/03
>ArtKramr wrote:
>> You might find the Nikkors a bit more contrasty and the image a bit
>"harder"
>> than the Schneider lenses. But not by much.
>
>This has been my experience with Nikkor vs Rodenstock as well.
There are those who don't like Nikkors because they are "too sharp" which is an
illusion created by the high contrast..
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: Jean-David Beyer jdbeyer@exit109.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: protar VII
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003
Richard Knoppow wrote:
>> I do not consider my Wisner Convertable Plasmat set old fashioned.
>> He designed it about 10 years ago or so
>
> AFAIK, the Wisner lenses were designed and built by Schneider. They
> may have modified the design of the convertible version of the Symmar
> but its essentially the same lens. Wisner offers corrector lenses of
> some sort to work with the individual cells. The original reason for
> convertible lenses was economy and I rather think that's lost here. A
> complete symmetrical or nearly symmetrical lens will be better than a
> single cell of a combinable lens if for no other reason than that
> symmetry automatically corrects coma, lateral color, and geometrical
> distortion. It seems to me that Wisner is jumping through hoops to
> get something more easily gotten in another way. --
My understanding is that Ron Wisner designed the lenses and that he had
Schneider manufacture the glass. Ron then mounted the glass in brass
cells and rebuilt a Copal #1 shutter to accept the cells (they seem to
be mounted a little closer than the #1 normally permits).
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer
From: Jean-David Beyer jdbeyer@exit109.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: protar VII
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003
...
> I have the same feeling as Richard regarding the Wisner lenses. They
> seem like a wonderful product and probably worth what one pays for
> them. However, I just can't see myself taking a lens apart to change
> its focal length in the field.
Unscrewing a cell from the shutter, placing it in the felt-lined wood
box, removing another cell, and screwing it into the shutter is not that
big a deal. If I were in a sandstorm, I might worry, but in that case I
would worry about any shutter I have ever seen anyway, as they sure do
not seem dust proof. A little care may be required, but the same care is
pretty much needed for everything else.
> With "old school" lenses, it kind of a
> case of two/three lenses for the price of one.- you remove a cell to
> change the focal length. The Wisner works kind of the same way but, in
> order to get the full utility, you need to carry all the cells with
> you. A cell you don't have with you is of no use.
But since all the cells fit in a wooden box 3.25"x3.5"x6", why would you
not take them all with you? And most of the time, I use two cells at
once, so I do not get the inferior performance of typical old-style
convertable lenses when using only one cell at a time. The reason the
cells are so small is that they are f/13 if used separately, but can
come out to f/9 (best case) when used in pairs.
> Also, there is the
> question of the problems inherent in the convertable concept but that
> can be argued about endlessly in the manner of its done with 'bokeh'.
>
> I think I would rather have two or three separate lenses rather than
> one of these convertables. I find that I generally only want to use
> one or two focal lengths with my 8x10 anyway.
In any given day, I sure do not use all 11 focal lengths available to me
with the Wisner set. But I seldom know, in advance, just which focal
lengths I will be needing when walking around with all that L.F. stuff
in my backpack and tripod over my shoulder. (Also, 90mm f/8 S.A. usually
comes along.) I do not think I would wish to put three, say, Symmar-S
lenses in there instead of the Wisner set: too heavy even if someone
else were paying for them. I used to carry an f/9 Nikor M 300mm, a 210
f/5.6 Caltar-S, a 135mm f/5.6 Symmar-S, and the 90mm f/8 S.A., but that
was heavy and bulky, and gave me fewer choices. With the set, I can use
the longest lens shorter than the one I need, so I can crop less in the
darkroom.
>
> With opinions, as always, YMMV.
>
YMMV for sure.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
From: Peter Davidoff peter@tomatoad.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Dallmayer lens
you wrote:
>Hello,
>I've been following this list for a while. I recently got a Cambo Traveller
>camera. I have been offered a Dallmayer 12" f/5.6 telephoto lens in a compur
>shutter. I've been wondering if any of you have had any experience with
>these and whether you can tell me if this lens is worth the $250 I've been
>asked to pay for it.
>Thanks,
>Simon Cygielski
I paid $15 for my Dallmayer, similar, w/o shutter.
Peter
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Info on old lenses
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003
"Jim Waggener" jimw@visi.net wrote
> I found these 3 old lenses in a box at a garage sale:
>
> Steinhell Muchen Anastigmat Cassar 1:3.5 f=21.0cm
> Schneider-Kreuznach Tele-Xenar f=36cm
> Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 1:3,5 f=16.5cm
>
> They are large and heavy. Anyone have information on them?
>
> Thanks
The Steinheil Cassar is a Cooke Triplet type (three
elements). I don't have specific coverage data for this lens
but an f/3.5 Triplet should have coverage of around 55
degrees. Maybe a bit wider when stopped down. Triplets have
in general smaller coverage than Tessars. This one will just
cover 5x7. It would make a good portrait lens for 4x5.
Steinheil had a good reputation for quality.
The Tele-Xenar is a telephoto lens of good quality. This
one was probably meant for use on a 4x5 camera but might
cover 5x7.
The Tessar is a very well known lens. At f/3.5 they are
not quite at their best. This is "normal" focal length for
4x5 _glass plates_ which are a little larger than sheet
film. At a guess its off of a European folding plate camera
of around 10cm x 15cm size.
It is certainly a pre 1945 lens. Tessars of this period
can be dated by serial number.
You can find lists of pre-1945 numbers at several sources.
McKeown's Guide has them. I think they are also posted at a
couple of web sites but could not find one just now with a
Google search.
Schneider has a complete serial number vs: date list on
their web site at http://www.schneideroptics.com
I have never seen any Steinheil dating info anywhere.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Heliar vs tessar?
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003
"Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl wrote
> Richard Knoppow wrote:
>
> > Kodam (sic) made a whole series of Heliar type lenses based on
> > Altman's design. These include the lens for the Kodak
> > Medalist camera, the lens refered to above for small press
> > cameras, two enlarging lenses of 50mm and 75mm FL (the 100mm
> > is a dyalite). The original 80mm f/2.8 lenses for the
> > Hasselblad camera, and several others.
>
> Interesting!
> Do you have a link to something showing the Kodak/Hasselblad Ektars were of
> this Altman-version of the Heliar type?
Unfortunately, I do not. However I am certain these lenses
were Heliar types. Altman's lenses were f/4.5 and f/3.5 so
the Hassy lenses at f/2.8 suggests perhaps a somewhat
different design. I have had the construction of these
lenses confirmed by someone who has taken several apart.
If anyone has _definite_ information that the Kodak Ektars
for the early Hassy camera were NOT Heliar types I would be
very happy to know. Kodak certainly knew how to make Biotar
type lenses and made some very fine ones. For example, the
seven element, f/1.9 lens for the ill fated Ektra camera,
the f/2 for the Bantam Special (the very first Ektar) and a
number of fast lenses for motion picture cameras, not to
leave out the famous Aero-Ektar series.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Heliar vs tessar?
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003
"brian" brianc1959@aol.com wrote
> "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote
> > You are certainly right about the scale, at least a factor
> > of 5X between charts.
> > The coma is what Kingslake refered to although he says the
> > lens also had too much spherical. He doesn't seem to think
> > much of any of Harting's variations of the lens saying
> > essentially that at best they were no better than a decent
> > triplet. Evidently, the performance of actual lenses
> > reflected the situation in the patent. From what Kingslake
> > says Voigtlander did not build many of the original Heliar
> > but changed to the Dynar form and changed the name very soon
> > after the introduction of the lens.
>
> Is that Kingslake's "History of the Photographic Lens"? Its odd he
> would say the spherical aberration is large because the Harting patent
> design is very well corrected on-axis. In fact, it has much less
> spherical aberration than modern Plasmat designs even though the
> aperture is f/4.5 compared to the Plasmat's f/5.6. Too bad we can no
> longer call up Rudolph for clarification. I imagine that for wide
> field use its true that the Heliar is no better than a decent triplet,
> although it might have significant advantages as a narrow-field lens
> if apochromatic correction is required.
>
> Brian
> www.caldwellphotographic.com
Re-reading Kingslake's brief section on the Heliar in the
above book I can see my memory mislead me. Here, in part, is
what he says:
"If the patent data are to be trusted, Harting's original
design was not very good. It had a large Ptzval sum and
suffered from considerable astigmatism. the oblique
spherical aberration typical of teh Cooke Triplet ws
replaced by heavy coma when the lens was used with a distant
object, and the overall performance must have been poor." He
goes on from this to say that Harting was evidently concious
of the shortcomings of the design and to describe his
attempts to improve it. Harting abandoned symmetry and
eventually also turned the outer components around, both of
which considerably improved the lens.
Kingslake's remarks suggest he mistrusted the patent data
but he does not expand on that in this article or elswhere.
perhaps he was just surprized at how bad the design in the
patent was. Obviously, excellent lenses can be made using
the Heliar form but the type does not seem to have ever been
a favorite with designers.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Heliar vs tessar?
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003
"Dan Fromm" danielwfromm@att.com wrote
> Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com wrote
> > I know what a tessar is, what exactly is a heliar. Specifically I have an
> > uncoated voigtlander 30cm f4.5 heliar (used on 8X10) and am curious -what-
> > it is? Also noticed looking though the corners of the GG, the tessar (also
> > a 30cm f4.5) has the whole aperture visible at f8-f11 while the heliar
> > doesn't show the whole aperture until f22 and only stops down to f32 vs the
> > tessar's f64. Does this lens have less coverage? TIA for any info.
>
> The Heliar formula is essentially a tessar with the singlet front
> element replaced by a cemented doublet. Invented by Voigtlander, also
> used in V's Apo-Lanthar lenses. Few other makers used it, other
> examples include the Dallmeyer Pentac, the Kodak 100/3.5 and 105/3.7
> Ektars, and the Kodak 50/4.5 and 75/4.5 Enlarging Ektars. Said to
> cover a somewhat narrower angle than a tessar of the same focal length.
>
> I've had a 105/3.7 Ektar, which was the top-of-the-line normal lens
> for 2x3 Graphics. I preferred my 101/4.5 Ektar (tessar type) to it,
> thought the 101 was sharper. May have had an abused 105.
>
> Other people have commented on the 'plasticity' of images made with
> heliar types. Never saw that with mine, but then I've never been sure
> what plasticity was, so it may have been there and I didn't recognize
> it.
>
> Try yours, you might like it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dan
The Kodak Ektar 105mm, f/3.7 is one of a group of Heliar
type lenses designed by Fred Altman of Kodak. In his patent
Altman states that he uses the extra element and cemented
surface to improve the control of rim rays meaning improving
spherical aberration at wide openings.
Hans Harting originally tried to improve the correction of
the Cooke Triplet, of H.Dennis Taylor by compounding the
outside components. According to Kingslake Harting's
original design was not very good so he reversed the powers
of the outside lenses. This design, with positive elememts
on the outside, is the current one.
Kodam made a whole series of Heliar type lenses based on
Altman's design. These include the lens for the Kodak
Medalist camera, the lens refered to above for small press
cameras, two enlarging lenses of 50mm and 75mm FL (the 100mm
is a dyalite). The original 80mm f/2.8 lenses for the
Hasselblad camera, and several others.
All of the Ektar series is very highly corrected for
color, the intension was to sell color film. The Tessar type
Ektars and this lens are nearly apochromatic in correction.
Its difficult to understand the slight soft focus effect
often attributed to the Voigtlander Heliar. I don't think
any such effect was intentensional. The computer analysis of
several Heliar type lenses in Smith's _Modern Lens Design_
suggests that they should be quite sharp lenses. The curves
of Harting's original are shown and don't look as bad as
Kingslake makes out.
About the only other company to exploit the Heliar type
lens was Dallmeyer of England with the Pentac, designed by
Lionel Booth. This was a well respected lens but I've never
personally had one.
Altman's patent is USP 2,279,384
Harting's original Heliar is USP 716,035
A great many variations of the Heliar were designed by
Tronnier and others for Voigtlander over the years.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Heliar vs tessar?
Date: 11 May 2003
"Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl wrote
> Richard Knoppow wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, I do not. However I am certain these lenses
> > were Heliar types. Altman's lenses were f/4.5 and f/3.5 so
> > the Hassy lenses at f/2.8 suggests perhaps a somewhat
> > different design. I have had the construction of these
> > lenses confirmed by someone who has taken several apart.
> > If anyone has _definite_ information that the Kodak Ektars
> > for the early Hassy camera were NOT Heliar types I would be
> > very happy to know. Kodak certainly knew how to make Biotar
> > type lenses and made some very fine ones. For example, the
> > seven element, f/1.9 lens for the ill fated Ektra camera,
> > the f/2 for the Bantam Special (the very first Ektar) and a
> > number of fast lenses for motion picture cameras, not to
> > leave out the famous Aero-Ektar series.
>
> Thanks.
> The search for some documental proof continues then. If all else fails, i'll
> butcher an Kodak/Hasselblad Ektar and see for myself. ;-)
This might be irrelevant, but Zeiss patented some f/2.8 Heliar/Pentac
designs in the early 1950's which covered a moderately wide field of
view. U.S.Patent 2,764,062.
Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Hate to seem a pest but I still need help with LF
Date: 7 Apr 2003
Tom Ferguson tomf2468@pipeline.com wrote:
>A process lens would work and would be cheaper. The original poster's
>copy work ranged from a small of 16x20 (about 1/4 life size) to 3x4
>feet (?? If I remember correctly). This is a much smaller repro ratio
>than the 1 to 1 most process lenses are optimized for. In my experience
It's not actually the case that most process lenses are optimized for
1:1 reproduction (for example, most Apo Artars sold in the second half
of the 20th century were optimized for something between 1:3 and 1:7
depending on lens length).
Another good option, however, if you want something you know to be as
heavily computer-optimized as a modern general-purpose lens, would be
a modern enlarging lens. Again, these can be had much cheaper than
general-purpose plasmats in shutter.
One thing to remember about standard (as opposed to wide-field, like
the G-Claron and other plasmat type) process/repro/copy lenses is
that they're optimized to cover a much narrower field than general
purpose taking lenses, since they're used without movements. Since
the correction does not need to be good over such a great angle, it
can, in a well-executed design, be excellent in the center of the
field at the designed reproduction ratio; which is exactly how these
lenses are intended to be used.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Gorlitz Trioplan
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003
"David Nebenzahl" nobody@but.us.chickens wrote
> Can anyone here advise on the coverage, quality and any other useful things to
> know about a 105mm f/3.8 Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan (in Compur-Rapid)?
>
> Thanks to anyone who can illuminate this subject.
Its a Cooke Triplet, i.e., a three element air spaced
lens. My old lens list gives the coverage of f/4.5 and f/6.3
Trioplan lenses as 64degrees. This is probably stopped down
to f/22 or smaller because its optimistic for a Triplet.
Probably about 55 degrees is more realistic for other than
the smallest stops.
Triplets can be of very good quality but do not have a
wide a coverage as an equivalent Tessar. For good corner
sharpness the focal length should be a little on the long
side for the format.
Meyer made Triplan lenses in speeds to f/2.8 for 35mm
cameras. This is an odd stop, probably dictated by the
maximum open aperture of the shutter. Its likely the design
is actually an f/3.5 lens. The Compur-Rapid shutter appeared
about the late 1930's but was made until at least the
1950's. The lens is probably from a 3x4 folding camera of
some sort. A great variety of roll and plate back folders
were made during the 1920's to 1950's. This was probably
from a medium priced one, deluxe models would have had a
Tessar of some type.
Hugo Meyer of Gorlitz was a quality manufacturer. They
made a wide variety of lenses and also rangefinders for
folding cameras. One occasionally finds a Speed Graphic with
a Meyer rangefinder on it.
There is no way to tell about an individual lens without
trying it.
Can't tell you much else.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 24 Apr 2003
Subject: Re: Gorlitz Trioplan
>Subject: Re: Gorlitz Trioplan
>From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
>Date: 4/24/03
> Meyer made Triplan lenses in speeds to f/2.8 for 35mm
>cameras. This is an odd stop, probably dictated by the
>maximum open aperture of the shutter. Its likely the design
>is actually an f/3.5 lens. The
They made a 55mm F/2.9 which was in every sense a true F/2.9 lens, not a
mismarked F/3.5 lens.
.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: APO vs Standard lens
Date: Sat, 24 May 2003
"Norman Worth" nworth@earthlink.net wrote
> Excellent discussion.
>
> I have read that some of the older apochromats were designed for low-flare
> lighting situations and that this can be a problem when using them. I have
> also seen situations where certain process lenses - these are usually
> apochromats - had very high resolutions but poor contrast (early dropoff in
> MTF). On the other hand, many process lenses have very good reputations for
> general picture taking.
Most of the old apochromats were intended for process work
where flare is not a problem. I've just posted a simplified
explanation of half toning in answer to another question in
the group. However, the film used for halftoning or for line
work is extremely high contrast, essentially it is either
going to be completely black or completely clear. Flare
simply shifts the threashold a little, easly compensated for
in exposure.
Other apochromats have been made for other purposes, for
instance, the series made for the Alpa camera by Kern
Optical. These lenses are not particularly high flare since
they were made for pictorial use. They are no more complex
than achromats, the color correction coming from the choice
of glass types, and they were coated. These particular
lenses are reputed to be very sharp. I believe that Kern
also made some apo's for motion picture work.
Process lenses used for three-color-separation work must
have apochromatic color correction so that the images at the
three separation colors are in focus and also are the same
size. The latter, known as lateral color, or lateral
chromatic, correction is most easily gotten by using a
symmetrical lens. These are automatically free of lateral
chromatic aberration at 1:1 but are substantially free of it
at all conjugates. When designed for use at other than 1:1
the power can be shifted a little to move the distance of
best cancellation to whatever the lens is intended for.
For general use a well corrected achromat is quite
sufficient. Some acromats are very well corerected for both
lateral and longitudinal chromatic. The Kodak Ektar series
is an example. While many of these lenses are not
symmetrical they nonetheless have virtually no lateral
color.
Symmetrical lenses like the Dagor, Artar, Dogmar, are well
correced because they are either symmetrical or nearly so.
Flare is not directly connected to color correction.
BTW, a lens can be corrected for more than three colors. I
think (by my not quite reliable memory) that the method was
found by Morris Hertzberger. With it a lens can be corrected
for any number of wavelegths. Such lenses are called
Superachromats. They are expensive to make and have little
advantage for most uses so are not very common.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: SchnWen Chang eider Apo Symmar L lenses
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003
"Bob Salomon" bobsalomon@mindspring.com wrote
> In article bae7t5.2i0.1@nareid.me.uk,
> Helge Nareid hn.ix02@nareid.me.uk wrote:
>
> > A lens in which the secondary spectrum
> > :has been reduced, or
>
> Always that little word OR.
> --
> HP Marketing Corp.
You bet, one word. What it means, is that it may be a
misprint for or is a poor definition. If you look up the
meaning of secondary spectrum you will find it refers to the
chromatic error of achromatic lenses (corrected for two
colors). Apochromats have tertiary spectrum. A lens with
secondary spectrum is _by definition_ an achromat!
Remember, this little booklet of terms was aimed at
purchasing agents, not technical people.
Also please note that the two citations you use do not
consititute sufficient evidence of the definition of
"apochromatic".
Its also interesting that neither Schneider or Rodenstock
actually claim their "apo" lenses are apochromatic.
Rodenstock, at least, publishes a curve showing longitudinal
chromatic aberration, Schneider does not. IMHO the use of
the prefix "APO" in the name of a lens is misleading because
it suggests to the uninitiated that the lens is
apochromatic. Such a prefix is used for some true
apochromats, the Zeiss Apo-Tessar being an example. It is
_not_ part of the name of the Goerz Apochromatic Artar,
which uses the full term and is refered to as an Apo-Artar
only casually, never by the manufacturer.
In fact, the Schneider and Rodenstock "Apo" lenses are not
corrected for longitudinal chromatic for three color and
spherical for two colors, which is the _accepted_ definition
of apochromatic ahnd has been for a century.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Paul Butzi butzi@nwlink.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Heliopan
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003
Bob Salomon bobsalomon@mindspring.com wrote:
>> No thanks, I don't want to call HP and have you snail-mail me the brochure.
>> The Linhof one took two weeks and then, oddly enough, I got a second one
>> from you a week later--gotta get that stuff organized, gramps.
>>
>> Jon
>>
>Don't be ridulous.
>There is so much incorrect, misleading information on the web that today
>it is hardly a viable reference source for all questions. And frequently
>is worthless as a source of correct information.
Well, I don't know about that. I expect you haven't thought much
about it since you mailed me the entire set of docs on Rodenstock
lenses, and I scanned 'em all and put them on my web site.
But you'd be **AMAZED** at how many hits those scanned brochures take.
Stunned. Stupefied. Staggered. And I get a considerable amount of
email from people, too, asking where I suggest they actually buy the
lenses online.
And the hits on the scanned literature come not only from the US, but
from all over the planet. Sure, it doesn't help HP Marketing much
when someone in Croatia or New Guinea wants a brochure, but it doesn't
really hurt, either.
Sure, there's a lot of misinformation out there. But here's the rub -
the only way to eradicate misinformation (which, as a marketer who
believes in the superiority of your products, you surely wish to do)
is to displace it with correct information.
>Most have very good literature, however.
Look, it took my just about 3/4 of a work day to scan the Rodenstock
lens literature and post it on my web site.
There's no reason, none, why you shouldn't just scan this 'very good
literature' and make it available on the web. Ok, maybe you'd need to
secure permission, but who would refuse having their advertising
literature more widely disseminated?
>We even put up with nonentities who hide under rocks so lurkers will
>know that we do offer them all the information they need. All one needs
>to do is request it.
Uh huh. Here's a question - when someone from the East Coast of the
US hits the Rodenstock literature on my web site at 3:30am EST, do you
think they'd get the answer to their question by calling HP Marketing?
My web site has the literature they want to see, 24 hours a day, 365
days a year. No muss, no waiting.
And here's another question for you - since I scanned and put the
Rodenstock lens literature up on my web site, how much effort do you
think I've had to invest in maintaining it so that people can continue
to get at it? Answer: none.
So you can divide the 6 hours I spent by the roughly 30,000 page views
there have been on that literature, and it works out to about 3/4
second of my time invested for each page that was viewed.
That's pretty darn cheap. And since I don't invest more effort in it
to keep it going, it just keeps getting cheaper, and cheaper, and
cheaper.
I don't think anyone can answer a phone call for the same cost as 3/4
second of someone's time.
Are there questions that can't be answered by viewing the literature?
You bet. For those questions, I'd say it's worth having 'em call you.
Anyway, the cost to you of getting the Rodenstock literature online
was the same as the cost of mailing it to someone since you just
dropped the stack in the mail to me, and I scanned it. That's a good
deal for you!
And I'd be happy to do the same thing with current Linhof literature,
if you care to send it to me!
-Paul
--
http://www.butzi.net
From: Bob Salomon bobsalomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: SchnWen Chang eider Apo Symmar L lenses
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003
"Peter De Smidt" pdesmidt@dotnet.com wrote:
> "Bob Salomon" bobsalomon@mindspring.com wrote
> > In article bagi0t$o8i$1@panix5.panix.com,
> > tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
> >
> > If you are so concerned about the definition contact the experts at the
> > factory in Munich. Or the factory in Bad Kreuznach and ask them. I can
> > provide their literature. And as long as these are the recognized
> > leaders in large format and enlarging lens design and manufacture I
> > accept their printed definition.
> >
>
> Bob, you position is analogous to saying that we should let Epson's idea of
> 'archival' be definitive and unquestionable. This wouldn't be a very wise
> thing to do.
>
> Peter De Smidt
Try this explanation then.
"Defining Apochromatism
by Thomas Back
With the proliferation of apochromatic refractors that are available
to the amateur astronomer, it is time to define the parameters of a
true apochromatic lens.
The modern definition of "apochromat" is the following:
An objective in which the wave aberrations do not exceed 1/4 wave
optical path difference (OPD) in the spectral range from C (6563A -
red) to F (4861A - blue), while the g wavelength (4358A - violet) is
1/2 wave OPD or better, has three widely spaced zero color crossings
and is corrected for coma.
Here is a more detailed analysis for those that are interested. The
term "Apochromat" is loosely used by many manufacturers and amateurs
astronomers. Let's look at the history of the definition, and maybe a
more modern one. Ernst Abbe, in 1875, met and worked for Carl Zeiss,
a small microscope, magnifier and optical accessory company. They
realized that they needed to find improved glass types, if they were
going to make progress with the optical microscope. In 1879, Abbe met
Otto Schott. Together they introduce the first abnormal dispersion
glasses under the name of Schott and Sons.
Abbe discovered that by using optically clear, polished natural
fluorite, in a microscope objective, that apochromatism could be
achieved. These first true apochromatic microscope objectives were so
superior to the competition, that Zeiss gained nearly the entire high
end market.
So secret was the use of fluorite, that Abbe marked an "X" on the
data sheet for the fluorite element, so as to keep it secret from the
other optical companies. Abbe's definition of apochromatism was the
following.
Apochromat: an objective corrected parfocally for three widely spaced
wavelengths and corrected for spherical aberration and coma for two
widely separated wavelengths.
This definition is not as simple as it sounds. I have designed
thousands of lenses: simple achromats, complex achromats, semi-apos,
apochromats, super-achromats, hyper-achromats, and Baker
super-apochromats. Abbe's definition, to put it in clearer terms (I
hope) is that a true apochromat is an objective that has three color
crossings that are spaced far apart in the visual spectrum (4000A,
deep violet to 7000A, deep red). However, just because a lens has
three color crossings, doesn't mean that it is well corrected. Let's
say that a 4" lens has three color crossings at the F, e and C
wavelengths (4861A, 5461A and 6563A). Fine, this objective is now
considered an apochromat because it has three color crossings in the
blue, green and red. But what about the level of spherical aberration
at each of these wavelengths? If the lens is 2 waves overcorrected at
4861A, and 1.5 waves undercorrected at 6563A, is it still an
apochromat? No. It is no better than an achromat, as the OPD
wavefront error is worse than a 4" f/15 achromat. Abbe, in his
definition of apochromat, states that spherical aberration must be
corrected for two widely spaced wavelengths.
Now I can tell you what happens when you correct spherical for two
widely spaced wavelengths; you correct for all the wavelengths
between them too. This is called correcting for spherochromatism (the
variation of spherical aberration with a change in wavelength). Only
with extremely long focal lengths, aspherics, large air spaces, or a
combination of the three, can you correct for this aberration.
It is the designer that must come up with a good compromise of color
correction, lack of spherical aberration (3rd order and zonal) and
control spherochromatism, so as not to degrade the image contrast. Al
Nagler used a wide air-spaced Petzval design with Fluorite and
Lanthanum glass in his TV-140 to control the above aberrations.
Roland Christen uses the highest quality super ED glass (FPL-53) and
specially matched crowns to control the various aberrations (he also
slightly aspherizes the outer surfaces). TMB Optical uses Russian
OK-4 super ED glass (similar to FPL-53) with an outer crown and a
special dense crown glass, using air spacing with different internal
radii to control the above aberrations.
Also, the Abbe condition of coma correction is overstated, that is,
if a lens is well corrected for coma at one wavelength, in almost all
cases it will be corrected for coma at all the visual wavelengths.
Now you might ask, what is a modern definition of apochromatism?
Well, you might begin with three color crossings, but you would be
wrong. One of the first things an optical designer discovers is that
with catalog glass data, it is easy to design lenses with three or
even four color crossings (super-achromat). But when you get 6 place
or greater melt data, these designs often breakdown to only two or
three color crossings (that is not to say that a 4 color crossing
objective cannot be made), albeit with the chromatic focal shift
being very small. What is really important is how small the chromatic
focal shift is (not the zero crossings) over a wide spectral range,
and how low the spherical aberration is over that same range. So we
are left with quite an ambiguous definition.
After designing, testing and selling many different apochromatic
lenses I can state this: There is no "definite" line where a lens
becomes apochromatic (in the world of commercial APO lenses). But any
lens, be it a doublet, triplet, air-spaced or Petzval, that has a
peak visual null (~5550A - the green-yellow) with a Strehl ratio of
.95 or better, coma corrected and is diffraction limited from C (red)
to F (blue) with 1/4 wave OPD spherical or better, spot sizes under
the diffraction limit (about 10 microns in an f/8 system), has good
control of the violet g wavelength with no more than 1/2 wave OPD P-V
spherical and a spot size no larger than about 3x the diffraction
limit, will satisfy the modern definition of "Apochromatism."
Lenses of this quality do not satisfy the Abbe definition, but for
all intents and purposes, will be color free and will give extremely
sharp and contrasty images.
Thomas Back
TMB Optical "
--
HP Marketing Corp.
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 30 Apr 2003
Subject: Re: protar VII
>Subject: Re: protar VII
>From: Jean-David Beyer jdbeyer@exit109.com
>Date: 4/30/03
>Accordimg to Ron,these lenses were designed ot fill a niche marlet made up
>of a small select group of photographers who used and treasure convertables .
>>>
>>>They have been using Protars, Satz Plasmat sets and even the occasional (ugh)
>>>>Tiurner Riech. They all wanted modern versions made of modern "clean" glass
>>>
>>>>produced after WW II using clean room techniques in pouring, cooling and
>>>>asembly; lenses free of artifacts such as bubbles and excessive strain.
>>>>Ron's lenses fill that need and were never meant to do anything otherwise.
>>>
>>>I think if Adams and Weston were alive today, they would be first in line for
>>>>that Ron hath wrought.
>>>Wow! I _love_ to be included in the group including Adams and Weston. ;-)
>> And well you might be. (grin) I do seem to remember Ron saying that his new
>> lenses shared at least one element with the Clarons.
>>
>My guess is that it would be the two 250mm elements.
Might very well be. (s)
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 29 Apr 2003
Subject: Re: GG cut corners?
>Subject: Re: GG cut corners?
>From: "Bruce MacNeil" bruce@no_spambrucemacneil.com
>Date: 4/29/03
>I had the pleasure of spending a weekend with John Sexton in 1990 and he is
>very generous with his knowledge and a wonderful photographer.
True. I spent about two years with him on a Nikon Large Format lens project.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Combining lens parts
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003
"Francois Hendrickx" Francois75@zonnet.nl wrote
> Hi all,
>
> I've been reading along for a while now, and have much enjoyed the
> level and tone of this group. Compliments to all of you.
>
> I've recently taken my first steps in LF. I bought a Linhof Technika
> that came with four lenses. Upon playing with those, I found that
> I can screw them apart and use either just the front part as a
> seperate lens (which, in case of the 150 Symmar, gives me a
> beautiful soft-focus telelens in which the soft-focus effect can be
> regulated by closing or opening the aperture), or I can combine
> fronts and backs of different lenses to get new ones. Very nice,
> this. But I never read anything about doing this, any guidelines
> as to what works and what doesn't, what the optical rules are
> which would allow me to "predict" what I would get when using
> certain combinations of lenses, and so on. Am I going to be rich
> and famous now, or have I missed something?
>
> Frantois Hendrickx
Convertible lenses were very common up to the 1940's. The
best known were probably the Zeiss Convertible Protar
series. Most symmetrical lenses can be used as convertibles.
Plasmats, like the Schneider Symmar or Rodenstock Sironar
can be used this way. The early Symmars were corrected for
the use of the rear element alone but this compromises the
design when the lens is used whole so the convertible
feature was dropped in later versions of the lens.
Unless the individual elements are corrected for coma, as
they are in the Protar, the individual cells must be used at
very small stops for decent sharpness away from the corners.
The Dagor is an example. While the Dagor was patented and
sold as a convertible it really is not since it depends on
symmetry to correct coma. Individual Dagor cells must be
stopped down to about f/45 for reasonable sharpness.
The cells of a Plasmat are better even when not
specifically designed for use as a convertible lens.
When combining cells of different focal lengths the longer
focal length should go in front. When using single cells
they should go in back of the stop although in practice the
difference between the two positions is not very great.
Since the cells have a slight retrofocus property when used
in back of the stop, and a slight telephoto effect when used
in front the bellows draw required is significantly shorter
when the cells are used in the "wrong" position.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 07 May 2003
Subject: Re: Heliar vs tessar?
>Subject: Re: Heliar vs tessar?
>From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
>Date: 5/6/03
> I don't think the softness of the original Plasmat was
>intensional. I think it was just bad design by Paul Rudolph,
>who was pretty old at the time.
> The Plasmat type is capable of excellent correction. It
>has very low astigmatism and does not suffer from the zonal
>spherical its progenitor, the Dagor,
II think it may be a mistake to take a specific lens; the Hugo Meyer Plasmat
and lump it into all lenses of that type. As an employee of Hugo Meyer in the
years after the war I can say for a fact that the Plasmat was sold, advertised
and positioned for its pictorial roundness of image. I worked in Hugo Meyers QC
department and spent my days on an optical bench examining lenses for
quality.If I liked a lens it was sold. If I didn't like a lens it was trashed.
Ah the power! (grin)
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 07 May 2003
Subject: Re: Heliar vs tessar?
>Subject: Re: Heliar vs tessar?
>From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
>Date: 5/6/03 10:51 PM Pacific
>The curves of Harting's original are shown and don't look as bad as
>Kingslake makes out.
Kingslake was right. But he was only expressing the common wisdom of the time
as expressed by photographers who had used the lens.
About the only other company to exploit the Heliar type
>lens was Dallmeyer of England with the Pentac, designed by
>Lionel Booth. This was a well respected lens but I've never
>personally had one.
Ah the Pentac. The poor miserable Pentac. The bests known was the 8" F/2.9
designed for RAF aerial cameras and sold by the thousands after the war. It was
grabbed up by those of us who wanted a fast lens and mounted on Speed
Graphics for use shooitng 4x5 color by available light. I had one and all
those who had one lamented that its major flaw. It was soft. A soft aerial recon
lens? The mind boggles. There will always be an England. (sheesh)
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@tiscali.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lenses - yesterday, today and tomorrow
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003
Bob Monaghan wrote:
> c) some of the new MF lens designs are superachromats; lots more $$ for
> modest improvements in performance. [...]
"Modest improvements"??? Better look again. ;-)
> d) lots of older lenses of great repute are no longer made just this last
> year alone, e.g., the fuji fixed lens series now dropped, 500mm zeiss
> hassy lenses obsolete, etc.
The reason why some of these are dropped is because there are better
alternatives available. The 500 mm TeleApotessar, to name one, is surpassed
in performance by the combination of one of the SuperAchromats plus
teleconverter. The 500 mm TeleTessar was bettered by the TeleApotessar.
Can't say there's no progression in MF lens quality, much less that the
discontinuation of lenses "of great repute" is a tell tale sign of that.
> e) autofocus MF lenses are designed with different tradeoffs than manual
> MF lenses, with more constraints (e.g., weight, focusing speed..)
Yes. Internal or rear element focussing. "Traditional design" lenses are not
suited for AF use, too much weight to be shifted fast.
Now what was the main change in the design of the Zeiss 40 mm Distagon
again? Hmm... ;-)
> Final factor is high $$ lenses cost a lot due to high degree of human
> labor involved in selecting and matching and testing lenses (e.g., zeiss,
> leica..). It remains to be seen whether there will be enough demand for
> these high $$ optics to keep companies like Hasselblad (now Shriro of
> Japan owned)
Shriro of China?
> and Leica in production. Rumors suggest that Nikon optics
> div. is up for sale, no buyers at even firesale prices.
I agree. The drop in demand will be limiting the market because prices will
have to go up to make developing new, better lenses possible at all.
> I have done an analysis on the incremental cost of higher resolution
> lenses. Pretty shocking, esp. given the modestly larger enlargements which
> high $$ lenses make possible over much more cost effective optics.
>
> As quality standards for prints etc. continue to erode, who will pay these
> large increments for quality which will be wasted on majority of
buyers?;-)
High end MF manufacturers always were serving a niche market. They will
continue to do so, for as long as they will be able to continue at all.
From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lenses - yesterday, today and tomorrow
Date: 19 Jun 2003
"Chris Fynn" chris_fynn%20@%20hotmail.%20com wrote
> "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote
>
> > I expect to see continuous, gradual improvement of lens designs for the
> > foreseeable future, just as we have always seen in the past. There is
> > nothing on the horizon that will make good lenses unnecessary.
>
> Come on, a number of "classic" lens designs are still right up there amongst
> the best. Maybe I'm missing something, but what improvements there are in
> newer versions of these lenses seems to be due to improvements in coating
> and manufacturing tolarances - not to design changes in the optics.
>
> (I'm not talking about zoom lenses or retrofocus wide angle lenses which do
> have new designs that have improved their performance.)
>
> One thing I'm wondering about - a number of lens designs seem to have been
> re-formulated recently in order to use more "eco-friendly" glass. How does
> this particular design & material change effect the performance?
>
> - Chris
This discussion is parallel to one that pops up among LF people.
Their consensus is that yes, old designs, e.g., the venerable Tessar,
can be very good but that newer ones have advantages. The advantages
come down to somewhat better contrast, somewhat better resolution,
and, sometimes, much larger coverage with much better image quality
towards the margins. Also, sometimes, better performance at higher
apertures.
The benefits of digital computers may be a little overstated, at least
for fixed focal length lenses. The calculations behind the 38/4.5
Biogon were done manually and it is pretty well optimized.
Cheers,
Dan
From: Christopher Perez chrisper@exgate.tek.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Super Symmar 110mm XL
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003
Sir John,
I have once again mashed words. Let me try again:
There is the to be expected 2 stop light fall off from center to edge
when using a 110XL on 8x10. This effect is very similar to what one
experienced when using old Angulon f/6.8 lenses.
The Biogon design magnifies the amount of light at the edges in such a
way as to limit light fall-off to around 1 stop. Though the word
"magnifies" might be more than a little misleading. But I think you get
the jist of what I'm trying to say.
- Chris "Mush For Brain"
John Stafford wrote:
> Christopher Perez wrote:
>
>> Bruce,
>>
>> Believe it or not, the 110XL covers 8x10 when focused at infinity.
>> Well, at least the contact prints look good. There is light fall-off.
>> But I think this is due to the lens design and not due to the usable
>> image circle (there is no edge magnifying effects with this lens like
>> there is with Biogon forumla lenses). I don't know how well
>> enlargements would hold up way out at the edges. That's my only caveat.
>
>
> Chris, could you elaborate on "edge magnifying effects" of the Biogon?
> Is it the obvious - enlarged image at the periphery? Perhaps it is not
> something I'm noticing.
>
> tia!
From: John Stafford john@stafford.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Super Symmar 110mm XL
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003
Christopher Perez wrote:
> Martin,
>
> If you check the lens cross sections from Biogon-type lenses (Hassy SWC,
> Super Angulon, Grandagon, Mamiya 7-series 43mm, etc.) you'll see some of
> the elements are quite thick around the edges. This is deliberate and
> is used to modify the light fall off behaviour of wide field lenses to
> around 1 stop from center to edge.
> [...]
Chris, I am so glad you are here. If I may diverge a bit: the link that
follows is a flatbed scan of the Biogon 38mm. Note the reflections.
What's happening there? It almost looks like a cross-section of the
elements.
http://wind.winona.edu/~stafford/biogon-scanned.jpg
and a contax lens
http://wind.winona.edu/~stafford/contax2.jpg
From: John Stafford john@stafford.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Super Symmar 110mm XL
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003
Martin Jangowski wrote:
> Are you sure about that? AFAIK the Biogon type (nearly symmetrical, the
> rear lens near the film) has no distortion, but has more light falloff
> than the SLR-retrofocus WA lenses. These have less falloff, but much
> more distortion.
Dunno, but here's one Biogon design on a 4x5 which has no discernable
fall-off at the edges.
http://wind.winona.msus.edu/~stafford/pn/web/pages/MVC-180F.htm
:) Yep, it's a 4x5.
From: Christopher Perez chrisper@exgate.tek.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Super Symmar 110mm XL
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003
Martin,
If you check the lens cross sections from Biogon-type lenses (Hassy SWC,
Super Angulon, Grandagon, Mamiya 7-series 43mm, etc.) you'll see some of
the elements are quite thick around the edges. This is deliberate and
is used to modify the light fall off behaviour of wide field lenses to
around 1 stop from center to edge.
The symmetrical nature of the lens design has nothing to do with light
fall off in this instance. Angulons are also quite symmetrical, but
they have 2+ stops fall-off out to the extreme edges of coverage due to
the lens design.
SLR retrofocus lens designs can be quite complex. You're right, they
can have a terrible time controlling image distortion.
In the case of the 110XL image distortion is controlled very nicely and
the resolution and contrast returned by the lens has to be seen to be
believed. When used on the 8x10 format, the 110XLs light fall-off is
more along the lines of the 165mm Angulon than 165mm Super Angulon.
OTOH, light fall off or not, the 110XL provides such an extreme field of
view that I giggle myself silly every time I mount one up on a Deardorff
8x10. :-)
Regards - Chris
Martin Jangowski wrote:
> Christopher Perez chrisper@exgate.tek.com wrote:
>
>
>>The Biogon design magnifies the amount of light at the edges in such a
>>way as to limit light fall-off to around 1 stop. Though the word
>>"magnifies" might be more than a little misleading. But I think you get
>>the jist of what I'm trying to say.
>
>
> Are you sure about that? AFAIK the Biogon type (nearly symmetrical, the
> rear lens near the film) has no distortion, but has more light falloff
> than the SLR-retrofocus WA lenses. These have less falloff, but much
> more distortion.
>
> Martin
From: Michael Briggs MichaelBriggs@EarthLink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Macros vs ApoRonar and G-Claron?
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003
> I want to know what is the difference between macro lenses like macro
> symmar and sironar and process lenses like G-claron and Apo-Ronar? The
> macros are faster, but are they always better? I heard that the
> macros excel with 3-d subjects while the process lenses excel with 2-d
> copy work but what makes such difference? and what are the practical
> limitations?
There are several technical ways to classify these lenses. Probably the
most important is their coverage: wide or normal (narrower). The
G-Claron, Fuji-A, Apo-Macro-Sironar and Macro-Symmar are all
wide-coverage lenses. They are also all plasmat type designs. The
Apo-Ronar is a dialyte type, as is the Apo-Artar -- these have less
coverage.
The meaning to the photographer is that the wide-coverage lenses allow
movements such as front tilt that might be wanted in table top
photography to control the plane of best focus. For the dialytes,
unless a really long focal is used, movements are somewhat restricted
for macro photography. For use at 1:1 the coverage diameter is twice
that at infinity and large movements will be possible even with the
dialytes.
If you are taking pictures of flat objects, e.g., copywork, the approach
is to take the photo straight on with the film and lens stage parallel
to the flat object -- in this case no movements are needed and a
narrower coverage lens will do fine. This is the only interpretation I
can come up with for the statement that the macro lenses are for 3D
subjects and process lenses like the Apo-Ronar are for 2D subjects.
>
> I also wonder if the Fujinon A is similar to the G-Claron's or the
> Aporonar's. Do you think its f9 can be of serious limitation?
From the cross-section diagrams, the Fuji-A series appears to be a
symmetrical plasmat design, i.e., very similar to the G-Clarons. The
Fuji-A lenses have the advantage of multicoating. Both have a maximum
aperture of f9: if you have enough light, this isn't a problem. It
also tends to be OK when lenses of long focal length for the format are
used.
Another classification is whether the lens is symmetrical and therefore
optimized for 1:1, or whether the lens is optimized for some other macro
reproduction ratio.
--Michael
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Opinions on Graphlex Optar 135mm needed
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003
"jdunn" jddunn@plano.net wrote
> I just bought a Crown Graphic with a 135mm Optar. I wonder what
> the general opinion on this lens is for landscape work. Should I be
> looking for a dirrerent 135mm lens ?
Optar is a trade mark used by Graflex for lenses it had
made for it. Most of these are Wollensak Raptars but some
are Rodenstock Ysars. The Rodenstock is the better lens.
I've looked at only a limited number of Optar/Raptar lenses
and found they had excessive coma, leading to a smeared out
look in the corners until stopped down to about f/22. Your
lens may not do this. Check the corner performance in the
ground glass. Look at the image of a small bright object.
The lenses are very sharp in the center of the field wide
open. I think this may have been a design error rather than
a manufacturing variation. The Raptar seems to have very
good contrast.
Wollensak made some excellent lenses and some absolute
dogs. The enlarging Raptar series seem to be dogs with,
again, perhaps a design error. OTOH, the 190mm, f/5.6 Optar
on my Super-D Graflex is excellent.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: ashwood@eagle.ca (Harold Clark)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Coverage of Kowa Graphic lenses?
Date: 10 Jun 2003
steveg666@ultranet.com (Stephan Goldstein) wrote
> Does anyone know the useful image circles of the 210mm f/9
> and 305mm f/9 Kowa Graphic lenses? I've looked around on
> the web but have been unable to turn up anything useful. I'm
> interested in coverage at infinity, although if you have 1:1 data
> I'm capable of dividing by 2!
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Steve
I picked up a 150 & 210 in barrel for $30 Ca each, they came off a
copy camera. The 150 will almost cover 8x10, the 210 will cover 8x10
with all the rise I can squeeze out of the Deardorff @f45, although of
course corner sharpness falls off somewhat. In comparison to a 210 G
claron, the Kowa has a bigger image circle and also performs better in
the corners at the same displacement. Both my lenses screw directly
into a #1 shutter, although I have seen a 210 that doesn't, so check
this if you are buying one. I used the 210 for a film/developer test
(tmax 100/rodinol) and I enlarged part of the negative 10x . The
subject matter included some tall fine grass and cedar trees at the
edge of my yard. The sharpness was unbelievable, it looked like a top
grade 35mm lens.
Harold Clark
From: Michael Briggs MichaelBriggs@EarthLink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wide Angle Lenses
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003
Bruce MacNeil wrote:
> I am considering the purchase of a wide angle lens for my 8x10. Likely a new
> one.
>
> Rodenstock 155 Grandagon
> Schneider Super Symmar XL 150
> Nikkor 150 SW
>
> Anyone have some insight into which is the keeper?
They are all excellent. A plus for the Super-Symmar-XL: it is smaller
and lighter than the other two. A plus for the other two: they use the
optical trick of tilting the pupils do reduce the off-axis falloff in
illumination. All three lenses will deliver less light to the corners
than to the center of their projected images, but the illumination is
more even with the Grandagon-N and Nikkor-SW.
You have to decide which features are most important to you.
For the German glass, you can find graphs of the MTF curves and
illumination at
http://www.butzi.net/rodenstock/rodenstock.htm and
http://www.schneideroptics.com/. The distributors for all three
manufacturers will mail you printed literature. The Nikon brochure
doesn't have the graphs.
--Michael
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Tele-Arton/Tele-Xenar: Tele-Me the Difference
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003
"John Hughes" jhughes@surfglobal.net wrote
> As a practical matter, what are the differences between telephoto lenses of
> the Arton and Xenar designs--their relative merits and demerits? Thanks in
> advance.
> --
> John C. Hughes
> Political Science Dept.
> St. Michael's College
> jhughes@smcvt.edu
> http://personalweb.smcvt.edu/jhughes
There have been several types of construction sold under
both names over the years. In general the Tele-Xenar is the
simpler and cheaper of the two. The oldest Tele-Xenars are
simple with four elements in two cemented components. The
simplest Tele-Arton is a five element lens. I suspect this
extra element is a field flattener. Other versions are more
complex. In general the performance of the Tele-Arton is
significantly better than the Tele-Xenar.
Information on the current version of the Tele-Arton is on
the Schneider web site. There is some information on the
older Tele-Xenars and Tele-Artons there under Vintage Lens
Data but no diagrams showing construction although the
numeber of elements and groups is shown.
I have no examples of either type so can't comment
directly on performance.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "sympatic" tim@KairosPhoto.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Coverage of Kowa Graphic lenses?
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003
Steve,
from a collection of posts I've put together (goes on a bit... and may be
slightly contradictory...) - mostly from the LF list on photo.net - if you
search on there for Kowa 210 there are numerous posts:
conglomeration of posts
Subject: Response to kowa graphic 210/F9
Info from the posts listed below
It's (210) convertable to to 370mm (never tried it though)
keep an eye out for the little brass spacer (read below) mine came with one
in the barrel
The 210 f9 is actually the 210 f6.8 but in barrel (the barrel being the
limiting factor) - in a shutter it becomes the 6.8
One post figures it has a 460mm image circle - which seems a bit big to me.
I think Jim Galli testing it (sticking it on an 11x14 camera and checking the
circle on the back) gave around 380mm at f22, which is about what I figure by
the movements on my 8x10.
BTW, I found mine for $90.00 and put it into the Copal 1 my G-Claron was in,
then sold the G Claron elements on their own - if you are patient, you will
probably find a deal on one. And compared to the price of any other decent 210
for 8x10, it's hard to do better...
Okay - here's a conglomeration of posts:
"This is part of a test report written by Gordon Hutchings. Many years ago,
Burleigh-Brooks introduced a line of lenses under the name of Computar; the
Kowa Lens Company of Japan made them. These lenses were a remarkable value
as they were a wide-angle plasmat, excellent quality and quite inexpensive.
After Burleigh Brooks folded, the lenses were briefly carried by Kyvyx and
were called Kyvytar and then independently offered by Kowa a Kowa Graphic
lenses, in both shutter and barrel. These lenses were offered in 150, 210,
and 300 mm length and are excellent buys, if you can find them. These lenses
are hard to find, especially in 210 mm length. The cell of 150 and 210 mm
barrel mounts will screw directly into a Copal # 1 shutter, with no adapters
required. Some times the barrel lens will come with thin spacers. The trick
is this, for center image use, the more spacers between the rear cell and
the shutter the better. For the corners of the image, no spacer is best.
This is why, in a shutter mount, we often see one spacer as the best overall
compromise. For comparison, the 150 mm Kowa has an image circle of 290 mm or
about 1degree inches of movement for a 5 x 7. The 210 mm Kowa has an image
circle of 460 mm of about 2 degree inches of movement for the 8 x 10. This
is why we love these lenses so much"
The G-Claron is an excellent choice for wide field 8X10. I have used one for
about 3 years on 810 but just a couple of months ago a 210 6.8 Kyvytar became
available. The Kyvytar was made by Kowa of Japan and also sold as f9
Computar. It has a wider useable circle
than the G-Claron and holds excellent sharpness farther out into the edges.
But they're hard to find. It's a Copal 1 lens.
"APO-KYVYTAR lenses are made by the same people in Japan that made the
convertibles under the "Computar" trademark which I used to own and
which I sold to Chugai International Corporation who use the trademark
for their video lenses, enlarging lenses, and the large format taking
lenses (Computar Symmetrigons).
The APO-KYVYTARs are the same formula as the former Computar
convertibles except that the APO-KYVYTARs are one stop faster, i.e., 6.8
instead of 9.0. The 1/2 field angle is 38 degrees.
The APO-KYVYTARs convert to a focal length just a little less than
double the nominal focal length simply by un-screwing the front element
and using the rear element.
The APO-KYVYTARs convert in focal length as follows:
From 150mm to 264mm
210 370
240 422
270 475
305 537
360 633
480 845
The diaphragm scale is a double scale. The second scale is for use with
the single rear element. The rear element alone is slightly softer and
therefore good for portraits where it is desirable to shoot farther from
the subject and soften the texture of the subjects faces.
Both elements together give you the sharpest picture, and flattest
field, and the best color that money can buy!"
It is signed by J. Callahan, President, KYVYX Corporation, South
Hackensack, NJ.
On the difference between the 210 f9 and the 210 f 6.8 from Jim Galli:
You'll be interested. It is 100% identical and interchangeable with my APO
Graphic Kowa f9 210. The original barrel is the f9 limiting factor. The
elements are f6.8 and that becomes useable when installed in a shutter.
There is however a spacer on the rear group that holds it out an extra .039 inch
(millimeter?) from the mechanical thread seat. Your rear group is a 370mm
lens if you're inclined to use it that way.
there is more info if you hunt the archives here, or at the LF list
atwww.f32.net
tim
---------
Kowa 210mm f9 lenses
Okay, to make everyone happy I'm starting a new thread on this (it was under
Ektar 207mm lens hood)
"Kowa Graphic wide angle 210mm will cover 8x10 (IC about 380mm). It's a
small lens in Copal #1. The lens was first called Computar, then
Apo-Kyvytar, then Kowa Graphic WA. The company changed several ownerships.
It's a hard to find lens."
Geoffrey,
I'm guessing there is a difference between the Kowa Graphic 210 f9 and the
Kowa WA 210?
tim
-- tim atherton , November 19, 2002
----
Answers
Are there any differences between a Schneider G-Claron 210 and a Schneider
W. A. G-Claron 210?
-- Geoffrey Chen , November 19, 2002
----
didn't know there was a Schneider W A G-Claron....?
-- tim atherton , November 19, 2002
----
doing a bit of a search, the answer seems to be yes... the WA 210 G-Claron
is f10 ?
-- tim atherton , November 19, 2002
----
Wrong again;-)
Schneider W.A. G-Claron 210mm F6.3 factory mounted in modern black Copal #3
shutter filter thread 77mm. Covers 8x10 nicely at F22. Want to see a
picture?
-- Geoffrey Chen , November 19, 2002
----
cool - a pic would be nice
-- tim atherton , November 19, 2002;
----
okay, it appears the WA G-Claron's also come in f10 and f11...
and back to the Kowa Graphic 210 f9. Is the WA a different apperture? Also,
what's the difference at infinity in coverage between the two?
tim
-- tim atherton , November 19, 2002
----
OK I'll toss in what little I know and maybe discussion will clarify some of
the mysteries. I have gleened here and other places that the WA G-Clarons (I
have a couple of 270mm) were an earlier solution by Schneider to make a
wider field copy camera lens for vertical machines that didn't have the room
to make large copies because of the physical distances involved. 4 element?
and not really any wider than the normal f9 6 element versions. Also heard
that they aren't as nice for things at infinity as the f9's. Couple that
with the fact that they weigh a ton and need a pricey Copal 3 shutter and it
explains why they go begging on Ebay in barrel. The aperture differences are
from the different mounts.
If there is a seperate WA Graphic Kowa, that's news to me. I've only seen
the one type. They were made by KOWA in Japan. They appear as Computar f9
(NOT the same as the Symmetrigon 6.3) Kyvitar f9, and finally Graphic Kowa
f9. They are the same formula as G-Claron and very useable on view cameras.
There were also 240, 270, 305, and 360mm Graphic Kowa but unfortunately
unlike Schnieder, from 240 up you would need a Copal 3 mount. They're wide
field ie 80 degrees at f22 which makes them an attractive alternative for
8X10.
That is info I've gathered on the web etc. and could be wrong on many
points. Just because you read it here doesn't make it right. Would love to
hear from folks who have more or better facts. I WILL do the 210 on 11X14
thing and get back to the list tomorrow. Maybe even post a pic which I
haven't tried before.
-- Jim Galli , November 20, 2002
---
The wide angle version of Computar, Apo-Kyvytar, and Kowa Graphic W. A. is
210mm F6.8. I personally have never seen a Computar lens, but have seen the
Apo-Kyvytar and Kowa Graphic W.A. Both are factory mounted into Copal #1
shutter (at least this is what I was told), Apo-Kyvytar in white rim Copal
#1 shutter, Kowa Graphic W.A. in all black Copal #1 shutter. Apo-Kyvytar is
single-coated, the Kowa Graphic W. A. looks like multi-coated (not really
sure because no factory specs available). They are rare and thus command a
high selling price. They will set you back about $1500-2000 if you can find
one at a NYC dealership or anywhere. Of course, you may find a cheaper price
if a 35mm format dealership doesn't know how much it should be. Gook luck!
A reader from this forum sent an email to me "Apo-Kyvytar wide Angle 210/6.3
is pictured in Steve Simmons' large format book on p.37. It covers 8x10 well
with ample movement". I don not have the book, but I have to trust his
words. However, I think "210/6.3" is an honest typo, it should be 210/6.8,
unless this is another Apo-Kyvytar I don't know about. Really appreciate
anyone, who has the book, can feedback here.
From: mg76@lycos.com (Greg)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Ilex-Calumet f7.0 20"
Date: 7 Jun 2003
"Donn Cave" donn@drizzle.com wrote
> I leafed through the latest View Camera this afternoon and found
> an interesting and thorough (as usual) article by Kerry Thalmann
> about Calumet view camera lenses. To my chagrin, found that when
> he came to the f7.0 20 inch, he relied on Lynn Jones' comments,
> I assume from the View Camera lens series a few years back. I'm
> sure Mr. Jones was a far more accomplished man than I'll ever be,
> but his articles in that series contained enough absurdities that
> it's hard to take any of it as authoritative.
>
> Anyway, there are two related issues - how many elements does it
> have, 3/3 or 4/3, and is the coverage more or less in the Tessar
> range or does it just barely cover 8x10 despite its length. The
> figures quoted are 3/3 and 320mm (34 degrees, the smallest angle
> of coverage I've ever heard of for any lens.)
>
> I don't know how to precisely determine the actual coverage,
> because as the article points out, we're talking about circle of
> good definition and not the much wider circle of illumination.
> My subjective impression has been that it's like any tessar type,
> not real wide but at 20 inches it doesn't have to be.
>
> I do count 3 reflections in back of the shutter, though - it's
> actually easier to see this than it is with my f6.3 12 inch,
> thanks to the size I suppose. I take this as evidence that it
> really is a 4/3 tessar.
>
> Mine is No. 4076. A little damage to the front coating, but
> color exposures look fine and the shutter works without trouble.
> I do use movements with it. Anyone else out there have one of
> these?
>
> Donn
in the 80"s I found an 11x14 B&J; view attic stored in near mint
condition. After getting some film holders was at a camera show and
came across a 20" f/7 Caltar in an Ilex. Seller said it would cover
12x20" so I bought it. Well at infiinity it definitely did not cover
12x20" but is sure did cover my 11x14 format with a bit of movement to
spare. I recall even tilting my front standard quite often in lieu of
tilting the rear. F64 was the "sweet" aperture setting for the optic.
Sold the combo for who knows what reason. Now use an Improved Empire
State 11x14 view with Dagors and Protars. In comparing the negatives,
the Caltar was sharper and had more contrast but the images the Dagor
and Protar produce I prefer. Side by side there is a definite
difference in the feeling of the negatives. If I were to shoot 11x14
color though I'm sure the Caltar would be my pick
Greg
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Dallmeyer stigmatic f 6 9 inch lens
Date: 8 Jun 2003
jimryder@alltel.net (jimryder) wrote
> I have had this lens for years, using it on a speed graphic. It seemed
> sort of soft at the wider apertures but sharpened up stopped down.
> Recently I discovered it seems to cover the ground glass on my 8x10.
> It seems to be a convertible the back group is marked 14" but cannot
> be used alone. The front element is not separately marked but appears
> to be about a 12 inch focal length. The front group by itself is quite
> soft wide open but again sharpens up stopped down and still appears to
> cover 8x10. There is only one f stop scale marked f6, 8, 16...45. But
> what are the correct stops for just the front group used alone? What
> does stigmatic mean? and what is an approximate age for this lens? It
> is uncoated. I have really enjoyed this lens and will probably explore
> using the front group alone as a soft portrait lens on my 8x10.
> Perhaps with the 4x5 back. So far its been a lot of fun.
Rudolf Kingslake has a fairly long secton on the Stigmatic. The
original lens was designed by Hugh Aldis, who worked for Dallmeyer.
Several versions of the lens were made by Dallmeyer between 1895 and
1911, or later.
In 1901 Aldis left Dallmeyer and started his own company. Aldis made
a simplified version of the Stigmatic until about 1920.
While the various versions have a variety of constructions they are
all based on a principle devised by Paul Rudolph of Zeiss, the
inventor of the Tessar. That is to have a front group of very little
power but with the corrections for the rear group. These lenses are
not really convertibles although at least one version was sold as
such. A cheaper version of the lens was sold as the Carfac.
Your lens may be a Series II, which was f/6. This lens is shown as
consisting of a thin, low power, negative meniscus in front, followed
by a thick cemented pair +/- in the front. The rear component is a
cemented pair with the negative element facing the stop.
The word "stigmatic" means that the image is free from astigmatism.
At some point a double negative _anastigmatic_ began to be used for
this quality. A lens with astigmatism does not focus radial lines in
the same plane as axial lines. If you imagine the image of a spider
web the effect is that the spokes of the web can not be focused at the
same point as the round parts.
All lenses suffer from some astignatism but it is corrected to the
point of being insignificant in most modern lenses. The Plasmat type,
which is the basis for the Schneider Symmar and Rodenstock Sironar, as
well as most modern high quality enlarging lenses, can be particularly
well corrected for astigmatism. How the term anastigmat came into use
is beyond me but such variations of language are common in English.
BTW, astigmatism in a camera lens means something different from
astigmatism in the eye. The latter refers to a condition where the
lens of the eye is slightly cylindrical in shape so that lines which
are perpendicular to each other can't be brought to the same focus.
I have no idea of what sort of reputation Stigmatics had during
their manufacturing life but they were made for a long time so someone
must have liked them. In any case you have an interesting antique
lens.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Dallmeyer stigmatic f 6 9 inch lens
Date: 8 Jun 2003
jimryder@alltel.net (jimryder) wrote
> I have had this lens for years, using it on a speed graphic. It seemed
> sort of soft at the wider apertures but sharpened up stopped down.
> Recently I discovered it seems to cover the ground glass on my 8x10.
> It seems to be a convertible the back group is marked 14" but cannot
> be used alone. The front element is not separately marked but appears
> to be about a 12 inch focal length. The front group by itself is quite
> soft wide open but again sharpens up stopped down and still appears to
> cover 8x10. There is only one f stop scale marked f6, 8, 16...45. But
> what are the correct stops for just the front group used alone? What
> does stigmatic mean? and what is an approximate age for this lens? It
> is uncoated. I have really enjoyed this lens and will probably explore
> using the front group alone as a soft portrait lens on my 8x10.
> Perhaps with the 4x5 back. So far its been a lot of fun.
Oh dear, I missed a point in my other post.
To find the stops you must measure the focal length. The procedure
is to focus the lens first on an object distant enough to be
"infinity" and then for 1:1 magnification. The difference in position
of the lens is the focal length. You can also just measure the total
distance from image to object at 1:1, this is four times focal length.
If there is no convenient distant object you can focus for infinity
by autocollimating the lens. You need a mirror large enough to cover
the front of the lens. A shaving or makeup mirror will do but make
sure the flat side is facing the lens.
Put a pencil flashlight against the ground glass in the camera near
but not exactly at the center. hang the mirror over the front of the
lens. Focus the reflected image of the flashlight sharply. The lens is
now at infinity focus. This does NOT tell you what the focal length is
since you don't know the location of the second principle point. You
need to make the other measurement also.
Once you have the focal length you can determine the stops.
When the lens is used in front of the iris you must measure the
"effective" stop size, which will be a little different from the
physical size of the hole in the iris, probably not much for this
lens.
Set the camera up at exact infinity focus as before. Place a sheet
of tracing paper or other translucent material over the lens and place
the pencil flaslight against the back as before. Measure the size of
the circle of light projected on the paper. This is the size of the
entrance pupil and the effective size of the stop.
For convertible lenses used behind the stop the stop forms the
entrance pupil so its physical size is also the effective size of the
stop.
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Nikkor-M 3,5/105
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003
"Czarek" fotopub@astercity.net wrote
> Hi,
> I have found a lens NIKKOR-M 105mm f3.5 for large format. I cannot find
> any information about this lens. I am mainly interested what is the
> best scale - 1:? - ?:1 - that the lens work best at (I assume the lens
> is for Macro) and what is the image circle at infinity and at 1:1.
> What about the quality, contract, resolution, etc.
>
> What price would be justified to pay for this lens?
>
> Czarek Dybowski
The 105mm f3.5 Nikkor M is a standard tessar-type design (4 elements in 3
groups) with a coverage angle of 55 degrees at f22. Nikon lists the image
circle as 110mm at infinity @f22. Recommended maximum format is 6x9cm. It
is designed and optimized as a general purpose lens. Although it could be
used for macro work, it is not optimized for that application.
As far as price goes, I don't really know. This lens had a rather short
product life. Evidently they didn't sell very many of them, and they are
not very common on the used market. It is a fairly modern (early 1980s)
multicoated design, but given that you can get a comparable vintage
multicoated Sironar-N or APO Symmar with far more coverage for less than
$300 in mint contition, I would guess a fair price would be somewhere in the
sub-$200 range for a mint sample.
Kerry
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Nikkor-M 3,5/105
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003
"Helge Nareid" hn.ix02@nareid.me.uk wrote
> If I remember correctly, I can recall the 105mm f/3.5 Nikkor-M lens. It was
> a rather short-lived product in the Nikon LF lens range. Unfortunately, I
> have no literature available, but as I recall it was a Tessar type design
> (4 elements in 3 groups) like the other Nikkor-M lenses. The coverage was
> limited, I seem to recall a 110mm image circle (fairly typical for this
> class of design), and a recommended film format of 6x9cm. I believe it was
> made as a relatively fast normal lens for the 6x9cm format, corrected for
> normal working distances, and it was not especially corrected for close-up.
I don't have my Nikon literature in front of me, but off the top of my head,
I seem to recall that the 105mm Nikkor M was introduced sometime in the
early 1980s (between 1980 and 1982) and was discontinued between 1986 and
1989. In other words, it's listed in my Nikon brochures from 1982 and 1986,
but not 1989.
In addition to the specs I listed in my previous post, the weight was listed
as 170g and the filter size was 40.5mm.
Kerry
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Nikkor-M 3,5/105
From: Helge Nareid hn.ix02@nareid.me.uk
Date: 14 Jul 2003
Paul Butzi usenetp@butzi.net wrote
> fotopub@astercity.net (Czarek) wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I have found a lens NIKKOR-M 105mm f3.5 for large format. I cannot find
>>any information about this lens. I am mainly interested what is the
>>best scale - 1:? - ?:1 - that the lens work best at (I assume the lens
>>is for Macro) and what is the image circle at infinity and at 1:1.
>>What about the quality, contract, resolution, etc.
>>
>>What price would be justified to pay for this lens?
>>
>>Czarek Dybowski
>
> Is it really a Nikkor-M? The literature I have for Nikkor lenses
> lists the M series as consisting of three lenses:
> 200mm f/8s
> 300mm f/9
> 450mm f/9
> but does not include a 105mm f/3.5. The f/3.5 maximum aperture does
> not sound like it's part of the M series of Nikkor lenses I know about.
>
> The Nikkor-M series seems to all be the same design - 4 elements in 3
> groups. Can you tell us how many elements are in the lens you have?
> The usual way to tell is to count surfaces by counting reflections
> when you look into the lens.
If I remember correctly, I can recall the 105mm f/3.5 Nikkor-M lens. It was
a rather short-lived product in the Nikon LF lens range. Unfortunately, I
have no literature available, but as I recall it was a Tessar type design
(4 elements in 3 groups) like the other Nikkor-M lenses. The coverage was
limited, I seem to recall a 110mm image circle (fairly typical for this
class of design), and a recommended film format of 6x9cm. I believe it was
made as a relatively fast normal lens for the 6x9cm format, corrected for
normal working distances, and it was not especially corrected for close-up.
--
- Helge Nareid
From: Paul Butzi usenetp@nospambutzi.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Nikkor M9 300
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003
"Francois" francois.croizet@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>Hi
>I am planning to buy a second hand Nikkor M9 300 for my 4x5 Toyo 45A field
>camera.
>
>I have read very positive comments about this lens on the net.
>These have driven my choice for this lens.
>
>Are they still valid ?
>Is there another optic with a better quality price ratio on the market at
>present that I should consider ?
>Are there any table to get the age of the lens from its serial number ?
Yes, the 300mm Nikkor-M is an excellent lens. I own one, and it's an
excellent performer, as well as passing the compact, lightweight, and
relatively inexpensive test. At least among the group of landscape
photographers I've met in the field, it's a pretty common choice for
the 300mm lens range.
Other possiblities are the 300mm f/8.5 Fuji-C and the 305mm Schneider
G-Claron.
I've never even handled one but I own the 450mm f/12.5 Fuji-C and if
the 300 is anything like the 450, the 300 is a stellar lens. Here in
the US the price new is about the same as the 300mm Nikkor.
The G-Claron is optimized for close up, not infinity, and it's single
coated, not multicoated. Lots of folks use them at infinity and get
great results.
-Paul
--
http://www.butzi.net
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.darkroom
Subject: Re: Rodagon D 75 for macro?
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003
...
I was doing B&W; but it should be fine for color. The Apo
Rodagon D is actually a macro lens of a sort. It intended
for very high quality work within a narrow range of
magnifications. Rodenstock recommends it for copying color
negatives or transparencies. Within the range or
magnification its optimized for it should be extremely sharp
for other close-up work.
Most lenses are optimum when stopped down somewhat. About
2 stops down will eliminate vignetting due to the lens mount
and reduce some aberrations. Evidently, the Rodagon-D is
extremely well corrected so I think vignetting is the main
concern. The date sheet recommends stops between f/5.6 and
f/8. As you stop down you also begin to loose resolution
because of the diffraction of the stop. So, the best stop
for sharpness is the one where the reduction of aberrations
is balanced by the increase in diffraction blur. For very
well corrected lenses this will be about when the aperture
is at half its maximum diameter, or 2 stops down from
maximum. Where only the center of the image is to be used
really well corrected lenses may be sharper even closer to
maximum aperture.
Remember also that you can turn the lens around where the
image is to larger than the object.
From the Rodenstock date sheets I found on the web the
shorter FL version is apparently optimized for 1:1 and the
longer FL ones for some degree of reduction of image size.
If used within its limits this should be an exceedingly
sharp lens.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Bob Salomon bobsalomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.darkroom
Subject: Re: Rodagon D 75 for macro?
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003
Xosni@gega.net (Xosni) wrote:
> Have anybody tried using this lens mounted on on a camera for 3-d macro work?
>
> thanks
> email prefered
> xosni@netscape.net
There are three Apr Rodagon D lenses.
75mm 4.0
75mm 4.5
120mm. 4.0
All are current. Which of the 75mm ones are you asking about? Both are
duplicating lenses but are corrected for different ratios.
--
HP Marketing Corp.
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Distortion with 6.8 Angulon?
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003
"cor" Cor@HAALWEGLumc.nl wrote
> Forgive my maybe slightly naive question, but I own this tiny, but nice
> Schneider (Linhof) 90/68 Angulon. Thus far I used it mainly for landscape on
> my 4*5 (no room for movements ofcourse), and I am quite happy with these
> results. But recently I did some architecture shots and noticed a distinct
> distortion in the verticals (bending down, pincushion?), although I had my
> back level.
> Is this to be expected from a 90mm Angulon, also with a super Angulon?
>
> Thanks,
> Best,
> Cor
The Angulon is a nearly symmetrical lens. The rear has
slightly more power than the front in order to obtain better
performance for infinity focus. Symmetrical lenses are
pretty much free of geometrical distortion. The design is
similar to the Dagor except the order of power of the
cemented elements is reversed. The large outer elements are
to prevent vignetting. The coverage is around 90 degrees so
the lens should cover 4x5 with a little over for movements.
Find something with a square array like a sheet of graph
paper, maybe even a large sheet of graph paper:-) and shoot
it with the camera carefully squared up. It should reproduce
with no distortion, i.e., an array of equal size squares.
This test will show if the lens is defective in some way.
Symmetrical lenses in a symmetrical set up, i.e., equal
object and image size, are by principle, free of geometrical
distortion, lateral chromatic aberration (lateral color),
and coma. Even at infinity focus symmetrical lenses are
substantially free of these faults.
I have a very early (c.1929) 120mm Angulon which shows
color fringing, a fault symmetrical lenses should not have.
There was a major change in Schneider's quality control
between the 1930's and post WW-2 production. After the war
Schneider became a reliably high quality brand. Also, Linhof
is supposed to QC all lenses bearing its name. Nonetheless
its possible for a defective lens to get through.
The Super Angulon is a completely different design from
the original Angulon. Its a type wich looks like a pair of
back to back reverse telephoto lenses. The type originated
with the second type of Zeiss Biogon which is in turn based
on a patent by the Russian designer M.M.Roosinov. One of the
features of this lens is the oversize outer negative element
and the "tilting entrance pupil" which increases the oblique
illumination over that predicted by the cos^4 theta law,
which applies to all standard lenses. A great many lenses
are based on this basic design including most of the current
wide angle lenses for cameras not needing retrofocus lenses.
In general, this type of lens is significantly superior to
the wide angle lenses available pre-1945. Since the Biogon
type is essentially a symmetrical lens it should have little
or no geometrical distortion.
It is possible that what you are seeing is what is
sometimes called "wide angle distortion" which is not
distortion at all but rather the effect of seeing the image
from the wrong distance. The geometry of an image made by
an orthogonal lens will be correct when viwed from the
distance the second principle point was from the film. The
second principle point is one focal length from the film
toward the lens _at infinity_ but a greater distance when
the lens is focused for a shorter distance. For practical
purposes the print should be viewed from a distance equal to
the focal length times whatever enlargement was given to the
picture. Usually, unless prints are very large and viewd
from close up, the distance is too much and a peculiar
effect is visible. Namely, objects away from the center
appear too large and three dimensional objects appear to
distorted in shape. If one photographs the graph paper as I
mentioned above it will be reproduced exactly square. Now,
however, if we photograph an array of golf balls only those
at the center will be round. At the corners the balls will
be egg shaped with the narrow end pointing to the center of
the photo. When viewed from the correct distance the
vanishing perspective will make the balls look round again,
whcih is the objective of the type of projection done by the
orthographic lens. The array of squares will appear to get
smaller toward the edges, as they would if looked at in real
life.
The graph paper test will show if the lens is defective. I
am not sure what could cause this. I think the problem with
my ancient lens was probably the glass characteristics. I
suppose one could find out by dismantling the lens, I am not
curious enough to do that. Its too bad because mine is in
absolutely perfect condition and absolutely useless.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Bogdan Karasek: Your old Zeiss Tessar......
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003
...
That looks familiar:-) I think I may have posted a reply
to it.
Bogdan's lens and shutter was made for export since it has
I-B-T as well as Z-D-M on the dial. The patent dates
probably refer to U.S. patents issued to Ilex Optical.
Theodore Bruck of Ilex invented the clock work speed
regulator which has become standard in high quality
shutters. Fredrick Deckel, the maker of Compur shutters
licensed the patent.
A very great many of these lenses were made. 165mm is
common for many folding plate cameras, the Zeiss-Ikon name
on the shutter strongly suggests its off a folding plate
camera, perhaps an Ideal or Trona of 10cm x 15cm size. This
size was equipped with either 165mm or 180mm lenses. These
were deluxe quality cameras which came with the option of
Zeiss best lenses. Of course the lenses and shutters were
also sold separately. My 1927 Zeiss catalogue shows this
lens (No. 15b) being available in three types of barrel
mount and Compur shutter. Coverage at small stops (f/32) is
8 inches.
The price in the shutter was $65.50 USD. Equal to what in
modern money, maybe ten or twenty times as much, not exactly
cheap.
I have a couple of Zeiss Tessars. Among them are two
135mm, f/4.5 lenses on Speed Graphics. Both date from the
late 1930's. They are not quite up to the later Kodak Ektar
but are very respectible and very sharp lenses.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: kirkfry@msn.com (Kirk Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Camera and lens questions
Date: 6 Aug 2003
Bill,
Not sure on the lens except I have 21 cm F 6.8 Tessar CZJ #277808 that
seems to date from pre WWI in a Dial Set Compur. It covers 8X10 and
at least on the ground glass seems to be reasonably sharp at the
edges. Contact prints are good. Zeiss Ikon was formed in 1926 so it
post dates that. If it is not coated it is pre WWII. Should be a
good lens, the stutter should be tested. The late Herr Grimes set
mine straight.
DRGM stands for Deutsches Reich Gebrauchs Muster. This was a model
registration, quicker granted and cheaper than a patent registration.
DBGM - Deutsche Bundesgebrauchsmuster, post-war German (which War ?)
for `registered design'. And D.R.P AND D.R.G.M ARE PRE 1945
COPYRIGHTS. Take your pick, you can find anything on Google. Go with
the coating.
The camera is a CC401 or CC400 from calumet (interestingly the model
number is not on the camera, at least mine anyway). Kodak designed it
in the late 40's or early 50's and sold the license to Calumet when
they bailed out of making view camera's in the 50's. Great learning
camera, has all the movements and is build like a main battle tank. A
bit heavy and does not travel in airplanes well (can't take it apart).
Calumet made them for about 30 years. Early ones are gray, late ones
black. Sell for about $200 (about what they did for new). Must be at
least a hundred thousand of them made. Probably the most common
monorail ever made. Go use it. Calumet used to sell a very nice
shade for it but a Lee filter shade would be a good bet.
Good Luck,
Kirk
...
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Camera and lens questions
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003
...
> Lens: (from around the front ring) "Carl Zeiss Jena Nr 758976 Tessar 1:4.5
> f = 16.5 cm". It's mounted in a Compur shutter; above the lens it says
> "Zeiss Ikon"; below the lens is: ".D.R.P No258646 D.R.G.M."; on the side is
> "No108019". Lens glass appears to be uncoated.
...
Well, the lens is a Zeiss Tessar. From the serial number
it was built about 1927. Zeiss Tessars are very good
performers. Even though uncoated the lens does not have many
glass-air surfaces so does not have a lot of flare. The back
cap of the front cell will unscrew so that its easy to clean
the inside surfaces.
The f/4.5 Tessar has a little residual coma in the
corners. Its gone by about f/8. At f/11 the lens is very
sharp all over.
165mm is the diagonal of 4x5 _glass plates_ which are
actually 4x5 inches. Sheet film is a little smaller, the
diagonal being 152mm. The lens should cover about a 65
degree angle stopped down all the way. This is an image
circle of around 210 degrees so there is some room for
movements.
DRP is the patent number, DRGM is something like a design
patent. These abbrieviations were changed to DBP and DBGM
following WW-2.
The shutter is a dial set Compur (rim set Compurs came out
in 1930). These are very rugged shutters which will be
pretty accurate if clean. The speed cams sometimes wear a
little causing 1/5th and 1/10th to be the same speed. The
number on the side is the serial number of the shutter. I
don't have any serial number data on Deckel shutters (anyone
have this).
I am a little puzzled by the rail and bellows lengths. If
this is the camera I think it is three versions were made, a
standard version, the CC-400 with 16 inch bellows, the
CC-401 with 22 inch bellows, and the CC-402 wide angle
version with shorter rail and bag bellows. The rails will be
a couple of inches longer than the bellows. This sounds like
a CC-400, perhaps the bellows were not pulled out as far as
they will go. The bellows were made of a synthetic so should
last a very long time is not abused.
This camera (CC-400) was originally sold by Kodak as the
Kodak 4x5 Master View Camera. They were later built by B&J;
and Calumet. They were also built under the Cambo name.
These are excellent little cameras with practically
unlimited movements. They are common used now, and not too
expensive, perhaps because they have no glamour. There are
not many jobs which can not be done with these guys. While
the standard lensboard is a flanged flat metal board they
will take 4"x4" Speed Graphic or Graphic View lensboards.
This is a very usable combination although you may want to
invest in more lenses for it. The lens you have is a good
general purpose lens despite its age.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Camera and lens questions
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003
CamArtsMag wrote:
> Lens: (from around the front ring) "Carl Zeiss Jena Nr 758976 Tessar 1:4.5
> f = 16.5 cm". It's mounted in a Compur shutter; above the lens it says
> "Zeiss Ikon"; below the lens is: ".D.R.P No258646 D.R.G.M."; on the side is
> "No108019". Lens glass appears to be
> uncoated
>
> This is an older lens, 165mm which is essentially a normal lens. If it is
> uncoated I might use it for black and white but not for color unless you
> want an image w/o a great deal of saturation and sharpnesss. In black and
> white you can partially make up for this lack of contrast and sharpness by
> developiong your negs a little longer. Remember, I said partially overcome
> the effects of no coatings. Even a lens with a single coating would be a
> great improvement.
I wouldn't expect to see a "great" improvement on a lens this simple unless
you're shooting back lite subjects or not shading the lens. I have shot
with coated and uncoated tessars and if I'm careful using them, can't see
any difference in contrast. Coatings would make no difference at all in
sharpness.
--
Stacey
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Distortion with 6.8 Angulon?
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003
...
> "cor" Cor@HAALWEGLumc.nl wrote
> > Forgive my maybe slightly naive question, but I own this tiny, but nice
> > Schneider (Linhof) 90/68 Angulon. Thus far I used it mainly for landscape on
> > my 4*5 (no room for movements ofcourse), and I am quite happy with these
> > results. But recently I did some architecture shots and noticed a distinct
> > distortion in the verticals (bending down, pincushion?), although I had my
> > back level.
> >
> > Is this to be expected from a 90mm Angulon, also with a super Angulon?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Best,
> > Cor
The Angulon is not a convertible although it was actually
sold as one when first on the market (c.1930). AFAIK, it is
not compromised to make it convertible. If you are
interested in the construction and prescription it is
covered in USP 1,882,530 (Tronnier). In general, symmetrical
and semi-semetrical lenses like the Dago, Angulon, Dogmar,
Apochromatic Artar, have very little distortion because it
is cancelled by the symmetry.
When the Angulon first came on the market convertible
lenses were popular, so it was sold as a triple convertible.
In fact, neither the Angulon or Dagor (also patented and
sold as a convertible) are truely convertible because the
single cells are not corrected for coma. They will work but
only if very much stopped down (f/45 or so). The Convertible
Protar was designed to be a convertible. The extra element
in each cell is used to correct coma. While these lenses
must be stopped down it is spherical aberration which is the
main culprit, not coma. Symmetrical lenses are automatically
free of coma, lateral color, and geometrical distortion.
This explains why symmetrical or semi-symetrical designs are
so widely used for very wide angle, copy, process, and
aerial mapping lenses, where good correction of these
aberrations is important.
A completely symmetrical lens is completely free of these
aberrations only when the entire optical path is
symmetrical, although they have substantial freedom up to
infinity. However, where the lens is to be used for distant
objects the cancellation can be improved by shifting some
power from front to back of the lens. A great many lenses
feature this approach. The Goerz Dogmar, Schneider Angulon,
Kodak Ektar or Anastigmat 203mm, f/7.7 and probably other
K.A. lenses, and nearly all of the current Plasmat types
sold for large format photography and enlarging.
For a single meniscus lens or compound lens the distortion
depends on the stop position. In general the stop should be
on the long conjugate side of the lens (in practice toward
the object). Other aberrations of single menicus lenses
depend on the shape of the lens and its "bending" in
combination with the stop position. It is possible to make a
simple lens which is relatively free of coma, spherical,
distortion by proper choice of shape and stop position. Such
lenses are found in box cameras where some spherical is
allowed to remain because it appears to extend the depth of
field of the lens.
In general, lenses of the Dagor - Angulon (and lots of
others) type are capable of excellent performance. Their
main downfall is a rather large amount of zonal spherical
aberration which causes some focus shift as the lens is
stopped down and some softness when used at larger openings.
The Plasmat, which air spaces the inside element of a Dagor
type can be corrected for the zonal spherical and also has
very little astigmatism. This explains the popularity of the
type.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: spohn97220@netscape.net (Alan Davenport)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Finally 4x5
Date: 16 Jul 2003
When I took a workshop from Fred Picker many years ago, his
recommendation was to get a 210mm Schneider Symmar-S and a 120mm
Schneider Super Angulon. Over the years I have found the 120mm to the
most used lens I have. I do mostly landscape work with B&W.; The 210mm
Schneider Symmar-S is used mainly for such things as moving water,
portature and other nearby subjects.
A.B.Davenport
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 16 Jul 2003
Subject: Re: Nikkor-M 3,5/105
>Thank you very, very much for the answers.
>
>The lens, which I am talking about can be found at
>http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item;=2940577781&category;=15247&rd;=1
>The seller has informed that the lens is for 4x5" format.
>
>Czarek
No.It won't cover 4x5. it is for 6x9cm.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: jcpere@aol.com (JCPERE)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 16 Jul 2003
Subject: Re: Nikkor-M 3,5/105
>fotopub@astercity.net (Czarek)
>The seller has informed that the lens is for 4x5" format.
I don't think this is right. It may illuminate 4x5 but according to my Nikon
info the coverage is 110mm at f22. This is a lens for 2 1/4 x 3 1/4. Right
now the only advantage I can see in this lens over the 100-105mm f5.6 6 element
lenses is the larger aperature. Size is very close. The M types size
advantage really gets better with the longer lenses. Maybe that's why this
length was dropped.
Chuck
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Large shutters?
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003
josburke@bellsouth.net wrote
> As a matter of fact I just picked up a big old brass Emil Busch ROJA Rapid
> Aplanet lens with a Thornton-Pickard curtain type shutter mounted directly
> behind the lens. Looking forward to trying this lens out.
> BTW-There is also the option of using a Sinar Shutter System which is likely
> the most modern/accurate to use on those barrell lenses. I don't have one
> but would like to.
> Joseph Burke
This is most likely a Rapid-Rectilinear type lens. The R-R
type was invented independantly and simultaneously but
Dallmeyer and Steinheil about 1866 and became the most
widely used lens from then until the invention of Jena glass
in the late 1880's. R-R's continued to be widely used in
cheaper cameras until the early 1930's.
They are capable of very good performance but must often
be stopped down because of curvature of field. They are not
anastigmats, the astigmatism being minimised by allowing
some curvature of field. They are generally pretty well
color corrected.
The Rapid Rectilinear or Aplanat (Steinheil's name) were
mnade under an enormous number of names by probably every
maker of photographic lenses.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 14" lens available (maybe)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003
"Nick Zentena" zentena@kriek.dyndns.org wrote
> David Nebenzahl nobody@but.us.chickens wrote:
> > Bruce MacNeil spake thus:
> >
> >> The 14" is a very fine lens.
> >
> > And I see one going (in Copal) for almost 2 grand:
> > http://www.kenmarcamera.com/goerz.html
> >
> > Maybe I should get a little more mercenary with this, make some bux.
>
> Or buy the 14" artar in the barrel for $100. $500 for a brand new shutter.
> What $300 to have it mounted? How much more coverage does the Trigor have?
> $100 with out a great deal of luck will get you a 360mm process lens. With
> luck it'll get you two.
>
> Nick
The official coverage of an Apochromatic Artar at infinity
is about48 degrees. The actual coverage is greater by
perhaps 10degrees. The catgalogue coverage is based on the
very high image quality standards for its original
application of making photo-mechanical printing plates.
The Trigor is a Dagor intended for somewhat less demanding
photo-mechanical work. Its stated coverage is 58degrees at
infinity focus but no stop is given. This is the coverage of
a standard Dagor wide open so its possible the Trigor or
Blue-Dot has considerably wider coverage stopped down. It is
essentially a adaption of the Dagor as a copy lens. I
suspect the high prices come from either a misunderstanding
of what it is or perhaps simply because it was not made in
large quantities. As I said in another reply a Plasmat type
lens gives superior performance and is probably cheaper to
make because it has two fewer cemented surfaces. Most copy
lenses, current enlarging lenses, and high end large-format
lenses are of the Plasmat type.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Michael Briggs MichaelBriggs@EarthLink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Super Symmar 110mm XL
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2003
Christopher Perez wrote:
> There is the to be expected 2 stop light fall off from center to edge
> when using a 110XL on 8x10. This effect is very similar to what one
> experienced when using old Angulon f/6.8 lenses.
It is true that the 110 SS-XL doesn't use the tilting pupil trick to
improve the light falloff. In this way it is similar to most LF lenses
including the old Angulon. As such the light falloff should go as
cosine to the fourth power. The angle to the corner of an 8x10
negative is 54 degrees (inverse tangent of half diagonal of 150 mm / 110
mm). Taking the cosine, then the fourth power, the illumination in the
corner is 0.12 of the center illumination, a falloff of 3 stops. This
is also shown in the relative illumination graph in the pdf file
available from Schneider's website.
More than a few people have found the the 110 mm SS-XL to work on 8x10
-- I think this shows the great exposure tolerance of negative films.
Depending on one's goals, probably additional exposure over the normal
metering should be used, giving an overexposure to the center, so that
the corners won't be too severely underexposed.
> The Biogon design magnifies the amount of light at the edges in such a
> way as to limit light fall-off to around 1 stop. Though the word
> "magnifies" might be more than a little misleading. But I think you get
> the jist of what I'm trying to say.
The Biogen type (Super-Angulon, Grandagon, Nikkor-SW, etc.) magnifies
the pupils to keep them more circular off-axis, reducing the falloff to
cosine to the third power. A hypothetical 110 mm lens of this type
would have 0.21 corner illumination on 8x10 compared to the center --
2.2 stops.
--Michael
From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Boyer lenses ?
Date: 6 Jul 2003
p2macgahan@compuserve.com (P. MacGahan) wrote
> Wim wisdit@saturnus.nl wrote
> > Has anyone ever used the french Boyer LF lenses ? Are they any good ?
> >
> > Gilbert
>
> I've never used one. Even so, I have the impression that they have
> a different reputation in France than elsewhere. When I visit Bievres
> in June it seems that there are many different ones available, and they
> are well-known there.
There were many. I have three, of which I've so far tried two. All
three are coated, therefore probably post-war.
75/3.5 Saphir B enlarging lens, got to try for photomacrography and
close-up. Not good, absolutely and as in I have better, at 2:1 and
4:1. I finally got around to takingsome test shots at 1:1, 1:2, 1:4
this weekend. Not too bad looking images on the gg at 1:1 down. This
one is quite complex, absolutely not a tessar type.
20/1.9 Saphir in mystery mount (threaded, 18.70 mm across the threads)
in a c-mount adapter. In its adapter its prefocused to about 2:1.
Disaster at that magnification. Had a hard time resolving 100 lp/mm
in the target at 15:1. Can't imagine what it was made for or what to
do with it. Oddly, no serial number on it. The Vade Mecum says the
/1.9 Saphirs are double Gauss type, this one could well be.
reflections finds two groups, each of three cemented elements. Sort
of Dagorish. Not used yet, its a little long to use near 1:1 on my
little Graphics. The Vade Mecum says nothing about this one.
Any advice/informed speculation about what the 20/1.9 and ~200/7.7 are
and how they'd best be used would be welcome.
Cheers,
Dan
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: what's the difference between Wide Angle lenses and Wide Field ?
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003
"Thom" thomandpam@yahoo.com.au wrote
> john@stafford.net (J Stafford) wrote:
> >thomandpam@yahoo.com.au (Thom) wrote:
> >> something like a 127 to 135mm on a press camera is wide field whereas
> >> 100mm or less is wide angle. Same with telephotos. a 180 or 210mm
> >> lens is longer than normal but generally you don't start thinking
> >> telephoto till 250mm on up.
> >
> >Isn't there a strict definition of telephoto, for example where the nodal
> >point is in front of the first (front) element, making the lens physically
> >shorter than its focal length? Enlighten me.
>
> Beats the format out of me? My rule is that I work in powers. I
> measure the "idea diagonal" (1:1.25) of the image area to get "normal"
> focal length and then see anything above as a plus magnification and
> less as WA.
>
> Remember that "normal" also refers to the ration between the
> background and foreground.
>
> THOM
I think this is a source of considerable confusion.
When the eye is the same distance from a _contact_ print as
the lens was from the film, the angle seen by the eye will
be the same as seen by the the lens.
This condition works where the viewing distance is
approximately the diagonal of the print, as it is with
"normal" size fairly large prints.
This also holds true where a small negative is enlarged
and the viewing distance of the print is the distance of the
lens times the magnification of the enlarger. So, the proper
viewing distance is the same for an 8x10 contact print made
with a 300mm lens or an 8x10 enlargment made from a 35mm
negative taken with about a 43mm lens (I am leaving out
cropping and such to simplify).
If another focal length lens is used the viewing distance
will change.
This is why pictures taken with rather wide angle lenses
appear to be distorted. They are not, its the viewing
distance that is wrong. If these distorted images are viewed
from the right distance they look fine. To be clear I am not
refering to fish-eye type lenses but to regular orthographic
wide angle lenses.
The apparent relation of near and far objects is also a
matter of focal length vs: format. The perspective of the
image recorded by a camera is dependant solely on the
location of the camera. If a photo is taken with a wide
angle lens and another with a long focus lens the two will
appear quite different at first. However, if a section of
the wide angle photo equal to the framing of the long focus
photo is blown up so that the two images are the same size
they will be exactly identical as far as perspecitive and
relative image size.
One must think of varying focal length lenses on a given
format as actually a way of cropping the image in the
camera.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Distortion with 6.8 Angulon?
Date: 9 Aug 2003
"Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote
> Thank you so much for the detailed answer.
> My Angulon is very early. According to the serial number
> list on the Schneider web site it was built in 1929. I find
> that interesting in light of the patent date. I am not
> certain if the U.S.patent gives the date of the German
> patent, perhaps it was a year earlier, the U.S. patent was
> issued in 1930. The lens is in a dial-set Compur which tends
> to substantiate the date.
> Your analysis of the prescription makes me wonder if the
> design was not changed at some point. I wish I had a later
> Angulon to test. Later Angulons seem to have a good
> reputation. Mine shows the effects of the color fringing in
> B&W; at relatively small field angles.
> As far as the Series VII Protar, I think that a half-angle
> of 20 degrees is getting close to the limit of coverage for
> them. The coverage as indicated in the Zeiss catalogues is
> about the same as the coverage for the combined lens, so the
> angle for individual cells would be half or less than this.
> I think a combined lens with indentical cells probably has
> the greatest coverage, maybe 80 degrees at f/45. Not quite
> as much as a Dagor. Zeiss was pretty conservative about
> claimed performance for its lenses (Bausch and Lomb always
> quotes more coverage for its versions of Zeiss lenses).
> It would be interesting to me to know which old lenses you
> have found to be near optimum. I must say I am not
> surprized, I think some of the old designer did astonishing
> work. The one lens I have heard mentioned is the Zeiss
> Biogon, but I don't know which version is meant.
> Private e-mail will do if you don't want to create too
> many cult lenses:-)
Hi Richard:
Assuming the U.S. Patent prescription accurately represents the early
production design, I wouldn't be surprised if Schneider made later
improvments. The formula changes would not be very large to get rid
of the lateral color.
The older well-designed lenses are already pretty well known, so I
don't think there's much danger of creating any new cult lenses. The
best old lenses tend to be those of simpler construction which don't
require exotic glass. The Goerz Hypergon is an obvious example; as is
its lesser known predecessor, the Busch Pantoskop (the very first true
anastigmat); and successor, the Zeiss Topogon (one of my favorite
designs). All three of these lenses relay on extreme element bending
to eliminate field curvature and astigmatism, and the use of modern
glass does little to improve the performance.
Another extremely well-designed older lens is the Zeiss Double
(Convertible) Protar that you have a sample of. I've managed to
re-work this design to have slightly better performance when used with
a zero-power single-cell corrector, but the basic performance of the
double objective is about the same. I also found that introducing
higher index glasses into this design offers almost no benefit. Some
of the older Artar and Tessar designs are also hard to improve on, in
part again because they do not rely on high index glass for achieving
first-rate correction.
The Biogon name seems to have been applied to at least two very
different types of wide-angle lenses, although the designer Bertele
was involved with both. The first is a Sonnar derivative with a
negative rear element that covers about 60 degrees (U.S.Patents
2,084,309; 2,549,159; 2,622,480; 3,698,796), and the second is the
wider-angle type originated (I think) by Roosinov in the Soviet Union
(U.S. Patents 2,516,724; 2,721,499; 2,734,423; 3,154,628; 3,700,312;
5,056,901; and dozens of others). This latter type normally covers
90-130 degrees, and although some of the earlier examples are fairly
good the best examples I've seen were done within the last 20 years.
Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Distortion with 6.8 Angulon?
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003
"brian" brianc1959@aol.com wrote
> "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote
> >
> > I'm curious as to how the Angulon is corrected. The
> > Convertible Protar has the forth element for this. My only
> > Angulon is the one with the severe color fringing so I don't
> > think its a typical one.
> > The Dogmar was also sold as a convertible! I single cells
> > must have pretty poor performance. While the Dagor was
> > patented as a convertible the Dogmar was not. There are many
> > partial lenses which will produce an image of sorts, even
> > the rear of a Tessar will, but not many who's image quality
> > is reasonably good.
> > I have a Zeiss Convertible Protar. Its performance is
> > actually very good. As a combined lens its very sharp but
> > the surprizing thing is how good the single cells are.
> > A half Dagor wide open looks like my eyes when dialated:-)
>
> Hi Richard:
> The Angulon prescription given in U.S.Patent 1,882,530 does show an
> unusually large amount of lateral color. It appears to be of the pure
> un-corrected type that I call "rainbow fringing" in which the colored
> fringes appear as red-green-blue rather than magenta-green,
> yellow-blue, or cyan-red. This certainly is a surprise given that the
> design is nearly symmetrical. I tried varying the magnification from
> zero (infinite object) all the way to 1:1, but this had little effect
> on the lateral color. At 25 degrees off-axis the amount of lateral
> color is about 0.1mm for a 200mm focal length, so perhaps your Angulon
> is normal after all! I wonder whether Albrecht Tronnier (the
> designer) was aware of this problem at the time?
>
> I did some further checking on the convertible double-Protar, and it
> turns out that there is an example in the Zeiss Index which has
> somewhat better correction than the prescription given in U.S. Patent
> 532,398. There is still a large amount of higher-order coma in the
> single cells, but it doesn't start to show up until you get about 20
> degrees off-axis, so you might never notice it.
>
> I once tried to design a convertible Dagor system, but found that the
> single cells just didn't work very well, as you have noted. This may
> seem surprising in view of the fact that I had the latest design tools
> at my disposal. However, I have found numerous examples of
> century-old designs which really can't be improved very much using
> modern technigues.
>
> Brian
> www.caldwellphotographic.com
Thank you so much for the detailed answer.
My Angulon is very early. According to the serial number
list on the Schneider web site it was built in 1929. I find
that interesting in light of the patent date. I am not
certain if the U.S.patent gives the date of the German
patent, perhaps it was a year earlier, the U.S. patent was
issued in 1930. The lens is in a dial-set Compur which tends
to substantiate the date.
Your analysis of the prescription makes me wonder if the
design was not changed at some point. I wish I had a later
Angulon to test. Later Angulons seem to have a good
reputation. Mine shows the effects of the color fringing in
B&W; at relatively small field angles.
As far as the Series VII Protar, I think that a half-angle
of 20 degrees is getting close to the limit of coverage for
them. The coverage as indicated in the Zeiss catalogues is
about the same as the coverage for the combined lens, so the
angle for individual cells would be half or less than this.
I think a combined lens with indentical cells probably has
the greatest coverage, maybe 80 degrees at f/45. Not quite
as much as a Dagor. Zeiss was pretty conservative about
claimed performance for its lenses (Bausch and Lomb always
quotes more coverage for its versions of Zeiss lenses).
It would be interesting to me to know which old lenses you
have found to be near optimum. I must say I am not
surprized, I think some of the old designer did astonishing
work. The one lens I have heard mentioned is the Zeiss
Biogon, but I don't know which version is meant.
Private e-mail will do if you don't want to create too
many cult lenses:-)
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From camera makers mailing list:
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003
From: Gerald Newlands gnewland@ucalgary.ca
To: "cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com"
Subject: [Cameramakers] Photocopier lenses etc
Dear Murray,
The only Photocopier lens I ever recovered was ground flat on each of
two sides parallel with the optical axis. It was a symmetrical design
(like a cheap and nasty Apo Ronar). It had what appeared to be a
dichroic yellow filter evaporated onto one of the four elements.
Focussing was achieved by increasing the separation between the two
couplets with a lever. I got the impression that the focal length was
around 12 inches and that it had considerable coverage which makes sence
as it had to create an image that could fit on 11 x 17 inch paper. The
resolution is unquestionably rather high, especially so considering how
cheaply it was made.
Lenses of this design are usually about f-9 and yield optimum resolution
at full aperture. If you take such a lens and hook a microscope up at
the focal plane and focus on a distant resolution chart, you will see
that for each stop you close down there is a significant loss of
resolving power. This is certainly true of the Goertz Dagor and the
Rodenstock Apo Ronar. Both of these lenses resolve over 400l/mm at
full aperture (my tests which were crude). The Dagor is pretty poor at
f-22 and beyond.
Why not use it at full aperture?.
Have recovered what appears to be a mini version of a similar lens type
from a flat bed scanner. Focal length of about 25mm and is most
certainly razor sharp. Could possibly make a superb macro lens. Has
anyone tried this?
Some photocopiers had a pretty decent electronic flash unit in place of
the usual quartz halogen lamp. Hiuge tube! Love to get my hands on
one of those.
Regards
Gerald Newlands
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lens for copying work
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003
"Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com wrote...
> "Dr. Slick" radio913@aol.com wrote
>
> > [artwork] Sizes range from 8.5"x11" to about 4'x3'.
> > I usually end up about 0.8-1.8 meters away or so
>
> > I am using a 135mm/4.7 xenar
>
> This is not a stellar lens - it was made for press
> cameras. And press photo's were often _reduced_
> from 4x5 to fit into two column widths, screened
> at 100-200/dpi and printed on newsprint. So,
> not much performance was required of the lens.
>
> As it is mounted in a compur, I would guess that
> it comes from a time when Schnieder's QC was less
> than it could be. Schnieder let some real dogs get
> on the market - as I can vouch from experience.
I agree that the press Xenar may not be wonderful but not
for the reasons given. Actually, while press photos were
usually printed smaller than the original negatives they
were very frequently cropped, in fact more often than not.
The idea of using a slightly wide angle lens ("normal" for
4x5 is 150mm) was to be able to get something on the film
somwehere even if the camera was not pointed accurately. If
the lens isn't very sharp one can't do this.
The standard lenses used on Speed Graphics were Zeiss
Tessars and Kodak Ektars, both outstanding lenses.
As far as Schneider QC the above statement was true for
pre-WW-2 Schneider lenses but not of post ware lenses. Post
war Schneider began to make excellent lenses of improved
design and very good QC. Note the Xenotar used on
Rolleiflexes, one of the sharpest lenses around.
Xenars vary all over the place. The f/3.5 Xenar used in
Rollei cameras is excellent, the f/4.7 "press" Xenar seems
to have excessive coma similar to the Wollensak Raptars for
these cameras. That is, both are very sharp in the center of
the field but must be stopped down considerably (f/22 or
less) to get the margins sharp. A Tessar or Ektar will be
sharp in the corners, even with the somewhat short focal
length, at f/11 and are quite usable at f/8.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lens for copying work
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003
"Thor Lancelot Simon" tls@panix.com wrote
> Nicholas O. Lindan nolindan@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> >If you want to stay with a general purpose view camera lens:
> >
> >I would stay with a tessar formula lens. Tessar's have a
> >reasonably flat field, while Symmars, Sironars, etc. do not --
> >flat field having no advantage when photographing 3-d subjects.
>
> It is not the case that "flat field [has] no advantage when photographing
> 3-d subjects". If you did some actual testing, I think you'd discover
> that the field of a modern Symmar or Sironar is _at least_ as flat as
> that of most Tessars, over the area that the Tessar actually covers at
> the very least.
>
> Tessars aren't generally considered particularly good lenses for copy work;
> they are almost always optimized for infinity and their corrections depend
> on the subject distance. A better choice would be a lens actually meant
> for copy or tabletop work, such as an Artar, Apo-Ronar, or G-Claron.
>
> --
> Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com
> But as he knew no bad language, he had called him all the names of common
> objects that he could think of, and had screamed: "You lamp! You towel! You
> plate!" and so on. --Sigmund Freud
For medium reductions consider using a good enlarger lens.
They are usually optimized for about the object distances
involved.
Standard camera lenses are optimized for infinity. Some
will do OK down to about 5 focal lengths distance. Kodak
Ektars will work down to 1:1 if stopped down.
A process lens is ideal. Apo Artars, Apo Ronars, many
others, are intended for a magnification range of around 5:1
to 1:5 but will produce very good images outside of this
range.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: wollensak verito 14 1/2"
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003
"Marco Milazzo" mmilazz1@elp.rr.com wrote ...
> Richard,
>
> What was the Wollensak Versar, and how does it compare to the Verito?
> (I have on of these old behemoths.)
>
> Also, who would take a crack at fixing a broken studio shutter?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marco
>
> "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
Unfortunately, I have little data on Wollensak lenses.
The lens list in Henney and Duddley _Handbook of
Photography_ does not show construction for the Wollensak
lenses it lists. Wollensak was fond of lens names beginning
with V; Versar, Voltas, Varium, Verito, Velostigmat.
Velostigmat was used as a general trade name for anastigmat
lenses. In 1946 Wollensak dropped it in favor of Raptar. The
soft focus lenses were probably of the same general type but
varying in speed, again, I don't have definite information.
I also don't have anyone specific to recommend for the
Studio shutter but you can try Steve Grime's shop
http://www.skgrimes.com
or
Ken Ruth
Photography on Bald Mountain
Davenport, CA
baldmtn@pacbell.net
831-423-4465
Phone calls Wed & Thur 9-5 and Fri 9-Noon.
http://www.baldmtn.com/
They are a sort of court of last resort for exotic
equipment. Probably if anyone can fix Studio shutters Ken
Ruth can.
Sorry I don't have more. Most Wollensak catalogues I've
seen also don't show construction data.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: wollensak verito 14 1/2"
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003
"jjs" nospam@nospam.xxx wrote ...
>
> Got a Wollensak Verito 14 1/2" Diffused Focus lens in shutter/diaphram
> today from a rural haunt that's turned up a *good thing before. Question
> regards age. This one has no serial number engraved in the front ring as
> others do. Age? Ideas?
>
>
> * is an earlier find from the same place
> http://wind.winona.edu/~stafford/mystery-lens
I've never found any serial number data for Wollensak.
According to Rudolf Kingslake's history of Rochester, N.Y.
camera and lens companies Wollensak bought the Rochester
Lens Company in 1905 and aquired the rights to its Royal
Anastigmat lens. Wollensak changed the name of this lens to
the Vitax and continued to make it until 1935. The Verito is
a variation of this same idea for a soft-focus lens. I don't
have dates for it but would guess it was put into production
in the early 'teens and probably continued into the 1940's.
Most of these lenses are found in Wollensak "Studio"
shutters. These use the same blades for both shutter and
diaphragm. They are often found in inoperative condition and
are supposed to be hard to fix.
The Verito and Veritas lenses were very popular for
portrait work in the 1920's through 1940's so there are a
lot of these lenses around. Soft focus lenses are still
being made, for instance the new version of the Cooke lens
and the Rodenstock Imagon, so lenses of this type are not
neccessarily either antiques or even very old.
I will repeat an old call for help. If anyone has reliable
serial number information for either Wollensak or Bausch &
Lomb lenses I would be very happy to have it. B&L; especially
seems to have used at least two systems of numbering, older
lenses having long serial numbers, later ones numbers with a
two letter prefix a'la Kodak, but without any clue as to the
meaning of the prefix.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 30 Dec 2003
Subject: Re: Respacing Process Lenses
>Bob:
>Technically might be correct, but the slow symmetrical (or
>quasi-symmetrical) lenses used for large format photography will have
>little or no change in performance as you move from 1:20 or 1:10 out
>to infinity.
There would be no change in center resolution at all at any scale. The only
real change is edge resolution. The idea is to have matching resolution in
both in the center and edge (full field) at that 1:10 ratio.
This is usually the main data in computer lens design printouts. That is,
center and edge resolutions ploted by image scale.
So a lens can be designed to operate at 1:1 or 1:10 or 1:10000. All the lens
designer has to do is simply run the program and picks the spacer.
Larry
From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Respacing Process Lenses
Date: 29 Dec 2003
Bob Salomon bob_salomon@mindspring.com wrote
> "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > Pictorial lenses are generally optimized for infinity focus
>
> What modern or recently modern are optimized for infinity.
>
> All of the ones currently made are optimized for 1:10 or 1:20.
Bob:
Technically might be correct, but the slow symmetrical (or
quasi-symmetrical) lenses used for large format photography will have
little or no change in performance as you move from 1:20 or 1:10 out
to infinity. Departure from design performance due to manufacturing
errors (still within reasonable tolerances) will likely have a greater
impact on performance.
Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com
From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 29 Dec 2003
Subject: Re: Respacing Process Lenses
>What modern or recently modern are optimized for infinity.
>
>All of the ones currently made are optimized for 1:10 or 1:20.
I second that. Very rare to get an infinity focus lens unless it's used for
aerial photography.
A short answer to all this is that a process lens will have some resolution
tunnel vision as focus moves to infinity from 1:1.
That is, center resolution will not change but edge resolution will be lower.
Larry
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 360mm or 480mm for 8x10 portraits
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003
"Ken Smith" aldenphoto@aol.com wrote...
> If the 480 works out to be "only" 66mm on a 35mm camera, wouldn't that
> be better for portraits with the 8x10. On 35, one usually uses 85-135
> range. Why then use a 360 which is like a 50mm on a 35. There must be
> something else going on that as a first time 8x10 user, I don't yet understand.
> As for the look of the portrait, I would prefer sharpness back to the
> ears, so I'm NOT thinking I should go longer for a select focus look.
> I would prefer the full Avedon American West look, pores and all. I
> read however that Avedon used a 360 for that collection.
True?
I'll add my rule of thumb to the others. Portrait lenses
should be from 2 to 3 times the long side of the format.
Usually 2 X the diagonal is recommended. Of course, the
perspective of the camera is entirely a matter of its
distance form the subject. The lens focal length is chosen
to "crop" the picture so that it fills the image area.
Most 8x10 field cameras will not accomodate long enough
lenses to fulfill the above criteria. Most portrait studios
used floor standing studio cameras with bellows draw on the
order of 48 inches. I think this is why some old portraits
show rather astonished (or is it shocked) looks.
Understandable considering the amount of machinery staring
at them.
For formal portraits I use a 5x7 Agfa camera with a 4x5
back on it. This thing has 21 inches of bellows draw, plenty
for a 12" lens. My favorite is an old Goerz Dagor, which has
just enough of the right kind of softness to be flattering.
Translating lens focal lengths from one format to another
is indefinite if the aspect ratio is not the same. If one
considers the full 35mm frame the diagonal, thus "normal" FL
is about 45mm, the usual 50mm lens being slightly long. If
one crops the 35mm frame to 8x10 aspect ratio the diagonal
becomes about 38.5mm. I think this explains the popularity
of 35mm FL lenses for 35mm cameras. So, for full frame a
portrait lens should be around 90mm but if the negative is
to be cropped to 8x10 the FL is about 80mm. Not a big deal.
The equivalent for an 8x10 is about 400mm and you are simply
not going to get that to work on most field cameras. Use the
longest lens you can and back the camera off a bit.
Actually, look at the nose size vs: ears. Big noses require
long lenses, big ears look better with shorter lenses.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lens Cells
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003
"Marv Soloff" msoloff@worldnet.att.net wrote
> Was skimming Surplus Shed yesterday and came across a Wollensak lens
> cell set suitable for 8 x 10 and probably for mounting in a Rapax
> shutter. PN 3060. Price was $50.00
>
> "Unused beauties. Lens set consists of two mounted lens assemblies that
> were designed to go onto either side of the iris/shutter assembly for an
> 8" x 10" format camera. We don't have the exact specs or spacing. Coated
> optics. Front assembly is 3" diameter (clear lens diameter is 2-5/8"
> diameter. Rear assembly is 3" diameter (clear lens diameter is 2-3/8".
> Focal length is 302mm. Only have a few."
>
> Regards,
> Marv
Probably a Tessar type. It was probably meant to mount in
a #5 Alphax. Wollensak seems to have mounted lenses directly
in the shutter without an adaptor barrel so, If you can find
the right shutter you are home free. Wollensak lenses are of
variable quality, I have a couple wich are excellent and a
couple of real dogs.
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: older convertible lenses
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003
"CamArtsMag" camartsmag@aol.com wrote
> My experience is limited but here is my best guess.
>
> All put togther this lens has a focal lenght of X. When you remove the front
> element the focal length is X plus about 60%. When you remove the front element
> and place the rear element in the front of the shutter you have almost 2X.
>
> IMHO these lenses, when all put together are at best functional. When converted
> their performance falls off badly. It might work for contact prints but not for
> enlargements.
>
> steve simmons
> www.viewcamera.com
Depends on the lens. The single cells of my old Zeiss
Convertible Protar is quite surprizingly good. I use this
lens mainly for 4x5. I've made 16x20 prints from both the
front and rear cells alone with good sharpness. The combined
lens is very good. OTHO, a Turner-Reich cell has so much
chromatic aberration as to be unusable without a filter.
Dagors, while patented and advertised as convertibles really
are not. The individual cells are not corrected for coma.
When combined the symmetry corrects that but the correction
is absent in the single cells. They must be stopped down to
at least f/45 to be resonablly sharp away from the center.
Convertible Protars are individually corrected for coma.
This has no effect on the combined lens but makes a
substantial improvement in the single cells.
For the most part convertible lenses were economy measures
when most LF stuff was contact printed. A deluxe Protar set
(4 cells) gave you 9 focal lengths for substantially less
than the cost of 9 separate lenses.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Help - how to use a convertible lens
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003
"Jean-David Beyer" j@d.b wrote
> Richard Knoppow wrote (in part):
> > Convertible lenses like the T-R or Zeiss Convertible Protar consist
> > of single cells which are corrected so that they can be used alone or
> > in combination. When used in combination the longer focal length lens
> > should go in front of the iris. Ideally, when used alone, the single
> > cell should be in back of the stop.
>
> Richard:
>
> are you sure about this? I have read this both ways; i.e., some say
> the longer focal length should go in front of the diaphragm, and some
> say it should go behind. Similarly, while most people say a single cell
> of a convertable should go behind the diaphragm, a few say the opposite.
>
> Does it depend on the lens design? The reason I ask is because with Ron
> Wisner's Convertable Plasmat Set, I always use the longer focal length
> behind the diaphragm. I am pretty sure I do this because Ron Wisner told
> me to.
> .~. Jean-David Beyer
The longer focal length always goes in front. Its a matter
of getting closer to the sine condition for distant objects.
This is along the lines of semisymmetrical lenses like the
Goerz Dogmar or 203mm, f/7.7 Kodak Ektar which have some of
the power shifted from front to rear to improve their
correction for distant objects. The same arrangement is
found in modern Plasmat lenses like the Schneider Symmar or
Rodenstock Sironar. Both are semisymmetrical, meaning the
layout of the front and back cells are the same but the
powers are a little different. Those with the old
convertible Symmar will find that the rear cell is shorter
in focal length that the front cell. Since the front cell
will not fit on the back of the shutter in most of these
lenses you will have to turn the lens around. In any case,
you can see the difference by just looking through the two
cells.
The correction of a single meniscus lens depends on its
shape and the stop position. Where the lens is optimized for
a stop not at the lens surface the optimum shape is a
meniscus with both surfaces concave to the object and stop.
Sidney Ray's little book shows a Dagor in front of the stop
but its an error, there are some others in the book. The
stop position is important to correction of coma and
spherical aberration.
Since the single cells of convertibles cover only a rather
narrow angle, and since the location of the stop is probably
not optimum, there is often not a big difference in image
quality with position. Since the bellows draw is
significantly shorter for a cell mounted in front of the
stop this is often a practical way of using very ling focal
lenght cells which may be beyond the focusing capacity of
the camera when mounted normally. This principle was often
used in box cameras where mounting the lens in front of the
stop and shutter resulted in a considerably more compact
camera and protected the shutter from dust. This at the
expense of some reduction of image quality. The differnces
may have been lost in other aberrations since very few of
these lenses were achromatized. This lack of color
correction explains the universal use of orthochromatic film
in box cameras. Actually, the image quality of box camera
lenses is quite surprizingly good.
Convertibles vary all over in quality. IMHO the old Zeiss
Convertible Protar is about the best even including the
Symmar although the Symmar is a better lens when complete.
Many standard optics texts will show the variation of coma
and spherical with lens shape for lenses with the stop in
contact with the lens and with the stop spaced away from the
lens. The optimum shapes are quite different.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Help - how to use a convertible lens
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003
"Doc" tom.lane@charter.net wrote ...
Can anyone tell me how to use a Turner-Reich Anast.F:7.0
Ser.II # 5 Antistigmat Gundlach Manhattan Optical co.
Rochester N.Y. Convertible large format lens (8x10). I
recently found one on ebay and I understand that the lens
elements can be rearranged to make 3 different focal length
lenses - but how? When I bought the lens, I thought that
the change in focal length was achieved by the use of minus
filters - but this does not appear to be the case. Any help
would be appreciated. Thanks.
Tom
Convertible lenses like the T-R or Zeiss Convertible
Protar consist of single cells which are corrected so that
they can be used alone or in combination.
When used in combination the longer focal length lens
should go in front of the iris. Ideally, when used alone,
the single cell should be in back of the stop.
The focal lengths are marked on each cell. On T-R triple
convertibles the combined FL is marked on the front cell.
The speed of the individual cells is around f/12.5.
To get the various focal lengths use either both cells, or
only one cell.
While the corrections are theoretically better with single
cells in back of the stop i.e. on the back of the shutter,
these lenses are slightly retrofocus when used that way and
slightly telephoto when used on the front of the shutter. A
very long FL may run you out of bellows draw if mounted in
the "ideal" position but give you some working space when
mounted on the front.
Now the bad news. The T-R is not a particularly good lens.
Its performance is acceptable as a combined lens but the
individual cells show considerable color fringing. They
really need to be used with a yellow or green filter for
good sharpness. The fringing is visible on the ground glass
toward the margins of the image.
You have one of the older T-R lenses. The company went
through many hands. Late T-Rs were built after a new company
was started in Fairport N.Y., which is near Rochester. Most
of the lenses made in Fairport were made under contract to
the government to fit a spec intended for the Goerz Dagor or
Bausch and Lomb version of the Zeiss Convertible Protar. The
Protar is a very much better lens. Dagors, while patented
and sold as convertibles really are not since the individual
cells are not corrected for coma and must be used at very
small stops (f/45) for good sharpness.
T-R lenses were probably designed by Ernst Gundlach
despite the names of Turner and Reich being on the lens.
They were originally Gundlach's partners. Neither was a lens
designer and the overall design approach is one Gundlach
used in other lenses. Ernst Gundlach designed several lenses
which are essentially rip-offs of lenses which were
protected by patents at the time. The T-R is, essentially, a
Series VII Protar with one element split into two elements
giving a total of five elements in each cell. This requires
four cemented surfaces in each cell. Cemented surfaces must
be individually ground and polished to an exact match with
their mating surfaces. In addition, each element must be
very carefully centered and edge ground so that all elements
will be coaxial and exactly parallel. Its unlikely that very
many T-R lenses were properly centered. Decentration and
especially tilting of elements can be devastating to
performance.
With all this discouraging news the fact is that your
particular lens may be a good one. At least as a combined
lens the performance is pretty good.
The patent for the T-R is USP 539,370 The prescription
given in the patent does not incude the glass dispersion
constants. One can guess at what the glasses might have been
from old glass catalogues but you can't be sure.
I am quite sure this is more than you ever wanted to know.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Sharper Copy Lens for Crown Graphic???????
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003
Nick Zentena wrote:
> stacey fotocord@yahoo.com wrote:
> Xenars don't seem to sell for very much. I've got a 150mm and a 127mm.
> The 150mm wasn't very much and the 127mm came free with a camera. Best thing
> about the 127mm was the 0 shutter that I was able to screw a 150mm Claron
> right into. My 150mm is just fine if a person didn't want a lot of
> movement.
It's weird, almost every xenar I've used works great except that 135mm f4.7.
The 75mm one on the rolleicord is a really good performer and I have a 35mm
folder than has a 50 f3.5 that is sharp as a tack. Not sure what the deal
with the 135mm one is but it seems to be a dog for some reason..
--
Stacey
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Sharper Copy Lens for Crown Graphic???????
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003
...(quotes above posting)
For some reason the 127mm, f/4.7 Xenar has excessive coma
very similar to the Wollensak Raptar/Optar. If you look at a
small highlight near a corner at full aperture you will see
its smeared out roughly in a teardrop shape. As you stop
down the smearing becomes less. All Tessars have some coma
when wide open but for the 135mm, f/4.5 Zeiss Tessar or
127mm, f/4.7 Ektar, the coma is gone at f/8 and the corners
are quite sharp at f/11. Both the Xenar and Raptar/Optar
must be stopped down nearly all the way to eliminate the
coma. Both Xenar and Raptar are quite sharp in the center
when wide open. I suspect a design problem rather than a
manufacturing error. I wonder how both designs got to be so
wrong.
Other Xenars do not suffer from this fault. The two I have
in Rollei cameras have little coma and are very sharp. I
have other Wollensak lenses which are very good but somehow
the lenses for the Speed Graphic and Wollensak Enlarging
Raptars have real problems.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Respacing Process Lenses
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003
"Ken Smith" aldenphoto@aol.com wrote ...
> Do process lenses need to be respaced for pictorial work? I have in
> mind a Nikkor Apo 450, and a 19 inch Artar.
Goerz advertised that they adjusted Apo Artars for
different optimum magnifications by something they called
"apexing". I don't know what they changed. Apo Artars are a
four element lens of a type generically called a Dialyte.
One of the properties of this kind of lens is that it is
relatively insensitive to object distance. Symmetrical
lenses, like the Artar, are optimum at equal object and
image distances, i.e. a magnification of 1:1. The main
effect of using these lenses at infinity focus is a small
amount of coma. Since coma varies with the square of the
stop stopping down gets rid of it. When stopped down as it
would typically be for pictorial use there is no significant
coma.
A lens can be corrected for both spherical aberration and
coma at only one object distance. At other distance one or
the other will be greater than at the optimum distance.
Pictorial lenses are generally optimized for infinity focus,
process lenses for equal image and object disatnce, and
enlarging or copy lenses for whatever distance corresponds
to the magnification ratio that the lens is intended for.
Process lenses are generally symmetrical since symmetry
automatically corrects for coma, lateral color, and
geometrical distortion. Theoretically, none of these exist
where the entire system is symmetical, i.e., at 1:1
magnification. Symmetrical lenses can be optimized for
greater object distance (in other words for other
magnification ratios) by shifting some power from one half
to the other. Two examples of Dialyte lenses using this
principle are the Goerz Dogmar and the Kodak 203mm, f/7.7
Ektar, both lenses are optimized for infinity focus.
I suspect what Goerz did to the Apo Artar was so adjust
the spacing of the elements in both cells to achieve such a
shift in power. Simply changing cell spacing might have an
effect and would be simpler. One could experiment with this.
Both of my Apo Artars are very sharp at infinity focus
within the coverage of the lens, at f/22. I don't see that
doing surgery on the lenses would improve things enough to
chance damaging the lenses.
One can see coma by looking at a small bright object near
the margin of the image. Coma forms a tear-drop shaped
smear. The narrow end of the tear drop can point to or away
from the center of the image depending on the sign of the
aberration. If you stop down while watching the smear the
"tail" will begin to shorten, and at some point will
disappear leaving a sharp image. Nearly all lenses have some
coma so the effect can be easily seen.
Generally, the sensitivity of corrections with object
distance is dependant on the speed of the lens and its angle
of coverage. The wider the angle or the faster the lens the
more sensitive it will be to distance. The reason is that
the angles of incidence of light rays within the lens are
changing more with distance for either image angle or with
the larger elements for faster lenses.
Process lenses are generally very slow (f/8 or f/9 maximum
for four element types) and the angle of coverage is narrow.
While an Apo Artar _can_ cover an image circle about equal
in diameter to its focal length at infinity focus (about 53
degrees) its specified coverage at infinity is around 45 to
48 degrees. So, its performance doesn't change much with
distance.
Image quality will fall off rather quickly beyond its
specified coverage, however, because of astigmatism. For
Dialyte types the astigmatic fields depart rapidly beyond
what is called the "stigmatic node". A lens is corrected for
astigmatism at the optical axis (center of image) and at one
other point, this point is the astigmatic node. Beyond this
point the two fields depart causing blurring of the image.
Some lenses, a Dagor for example, have astigmatic fields
which depart relatively slowly beyond the stigmatic node so
they can cover rather wide angles by stopping them down,
Dialytes, however deviate very quickly so don't increase
coverage very much by stopping down. The image quality stays
good up to some angle and becomes awful much beyond that. As
above, an Apo Artar can just make it to an image circle
about equal to its focal length but is best if its about 20%
longer in FL than the diagonal of the format.
One must be careful of the image size specifications of a
process lens because they may be given for 1:1 where the
coverage is double that at infinity.
In short, leave your lens alone:-)
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Bob Salomon bob_salomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Respacing Process Lenses
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003
"Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Pictorial lenses are generally optimized for infinity focus
What modern or recently modern are optimized for infinity.
All of the ones currently made are optimized for 1:10 or 1:20.
From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Respacing Process Lenses
Date: 30 Dec 2003
hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268) ...
> >Bob:
> >Technically might be correct, but the slow symmetrical (or
> >quasi-symmetrical) lenses used for large format photography will have
> >little or no change in performance as you move from 1:20 or 1:10 out
> >to infinity.
>
> There would be no change in center resolution at all at any scale. The only
> real change is edge resolution. The idea is to have matching resolution in
> both in the center and edge (full field) at that 1:10 ratio.
>
> This is usually the main data in computer lens design printouts. That is,
> center and edge resolutions ploted by image scale.
>
> So a lens can be designed to operate at 1:1 or 1:10 or 1:10000. All the lens
> designer has to do is simply run the program and picks the spacer.
>
> Larry
Center resolution certainly will change as you focus from infinity
down to 1:1 or closer. Even if spherical aberration doesn't change
(which it does!), you wind up with an effective f/# two stops slower.
This really will have an impact on resolution.
The main aberration change that occurs in large format lenses as they
are used away from their design magnification is the introduction of
coma. Other things like spherical aberration and lateral color do
change, but to a lesser extent. Since coma varies only linearly with
image height, its effects can be seen fairly close to the image
center, and not just at full field.
Unfortunately, changing the cell spacing is a poor method for coma
control since it tends to introduce astigmatism, which is a far worse
aberration than coma. A far better method is to change one of the
radii slightly, which could be accomplished by assembling the lens
with one element changed.
The main data used by lens designers varies alot. I personally use
transverse ray aberration plots more than anything else, since it
gives both an intuitive and quantitative feel for what is wrong with
the design. A few older generation designers still tend to use
numerical surface-by-surface aberration contributions. Some designers
seem to ignore aberrations altogether and just use MTF. In the old
days printouts actually were used, but I don't know anyone who wastes
paper on this now.
Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Cell spacing-new question
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003
"Harold Clark" ashwood@eagle.ca wrote ...
> I have a couple of barrel lenses I plan to use in shutters, a 210 kowa
> grapkic & 305 g claron. I have read/heard that the cell spacing will
> differ depending on application, that the cells should be spaced
> farther apart for maximum performance in the center of the field, and
> closer for better performance at the edges. If this is the case, is
> there a standard formula which can be applied? By using spacer shims,
> could the lens could be tuned differently for 4x5 ( center ) and 8x10
> ( edges )or for close up vs distance use? Any practical advice would
> be very helpful. I have heard that the artars in shutter were spaced
> differently than the barrel lenses, but in what fashion I don't know.
>
> Harold Clark
There is no standard formula. Cell spacing affects a lot
of things. I think what Goerz did was to vary the spacing of
the elements in the cells to vary the optimization rather
than cell spacing. The main aberration which comes up when a
four element air-spaced lens of the Artar type is used at
infinity is coma. Coma is proportional to the aperture so is
reduced by stopping down. Its not a problem with Artar and
similar lenses at the stops commonly used in pictorial
photography. The spacing is not used to optimize the lens
for center vs: edges although mis-spacing in some types of
lenses will increase coma.
If the lens precription is available it can be set up in a
computer lens design program and the effect of spacing seen.
There is a pretty good freeware program called Oslo Light
available. Its limited in the number of surfaces it can take
(they want you to buy the real program) but it will work for
fairly simple lenses like Tessars, Dagors, Artars, etc.
Many lens prescriptions are in the patent literature. The
problems is getting the patent numbers. A good many
prescriptions are in _Modern Lens Design: a Resource Manual_
Warren J. Smith, 1992, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-059178-4
Yes, you can adjust spacing using shims, at least increase
it. There is no reason not to experiment provided you can
get the lens back to its original condition.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 15 Sep 2003
Subject: Re: Another method to measure cell spacing?
> If the lens has a patent number on it you can get the
>precription, including all spacing, from the patent.
These are only guides. To save lens elements from the scrap heap, lens spacing
is customized with each lens assembly.
What happens is each lens element is measured and sorted. An undersized
(thickness) element number one might be matched to a oversize lens element
number two along with a normal size element number three. In order to fully
correct this change from spec a +.0001 spacer might be used. Another lens in
the production might have spacer -.0002 with a normal number one, an oversize
number two and a undersized number three.
The assembler might have a selection of spacers from -.0005 to +.0005. This
method is called active allignment.
Larry
From: David Nebenzahl nobody@but.us.chickens
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Not answering the question
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003
Stacey spake thus:
> Jorge Gasteazoro wrote:
>
>> I did read the original question, thus my response. Sure, Simmons went
>> on to say in his opinion it was very important, and the went on to
>> describe how focusing ability can be affected by this....well
>> Duh!...Anybody that has used a LF lens knows this...or at least I hope
>> they do.
>
> Obviously David didn't or he wouldn't have asked the second question?
Obviously my *ss.
The second question was not "is lens cell spacing critical?"; the answer to
this is indeed "Duh!" as pointed out by Jorge, for certain values of spacing.
The question was "*how* critical is cell spacing, anyhow?". A careful reader
(a category from which you are apparently disqualified) would have remembered
(or checked) that.
And yes, I've used LF lenses before: I just don't happen to be an optical expert.
There is a range of opinions on this subject, by the way. I posted this
question on another forum and got this answer:
If, however, it is a set-up where the whole lens and shutter moves in
and out to focus as, for example, on a Retina or a Rollei, you might be
in trouble with some lenses. Many triplets and Tessar-type four glass
lenses don't mind very much if their front/rear cell separation is slightly
altered. Normally it just alters the forward focus point. With some others,
possibly some five or six glass Gauss and reversed Gauss types, I *think*
it might affect the correction of the aberrations, though it may depend on
the actual construction.
On the other hand, about eight years ago I remounted the front and rear
groups of a six glass process lens (I forget now what its name was, I got
it from an old PMT - photo mechanical transfer - camera) into a large
1930s Compur shutter to use on a 5x4 monorail camera with ground glass
screen focusing. I measured the shutter and the lens barrel with calipers,
and the shutter was between 0.2 and 0.3mm shorter, but the lens performed
beautifully with no aberrations worth mentioning so far as I could judge
even though it was originally computed for close distances and not infinity.
So you see the answer to that SECOND question isn't such a slam-dumk as you
seem to imply. There seems to be a certain tolerance for cell-spacing errors.
Do *you* know what this tolerance is? If so, please share
From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 12 Sep 2003
Subject: Re: Question about lens cell spacing
>I consider cell spacing very critical.
Sometime cell spacing is used to correct for any small lens grinding errors.
This method reduces glass scrap. So each lens assembly might have a different
spacer or lens spacing plus or minus a few thousands of an inch. If this is
the case, lens element from lens A will not fit on lens B even though both are
identical lens assemblies.
Larry
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Respacing Process Lenses
Date: 31 Dec 2003
hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268) wrote...
> >Center resolution certainly will change as you focus from infinity
> >down to 1:1 or closer. Even if spherical aberration doesn't change
> >(which it does!), you wind up with an effective f/# two stops slower.
> >This really will have an impact on resolution.
>
> No such thing as spherical aberration in the center of the lens. By defination
> spherical aberration is the focus differences between the edge and center of
> the lens.
>
> Also don't agree on bellow comp reducing resolution. Bellow comp is always a
> factor on any lens focused in from infinity. If what you say is true, then
> center resolutions would change as the focus changes even slightly in form
> infinity.
>
> Sorry but you really don't see this on an optical bench.
>
> Larry
You misunderstand what spherical aberration is. It takes place at
all parts of the image. It is due to the variation of focus of light
rays coming through different diameters of the lens. A spherical
surface can not focus light sharply since its focal length varies
continuously from center to edge. At the center of the _image_ light
from all diameters of the lens is present, so one has spherical
aberration. At other image hights one also has spherical but there
will be other aberrations as well, such as coma.
Diffraction scales with image hight. At 1:1 the effective aperture
is half of its infinity value. Resolution due to diffraction will be
the same provided the aperture is opened up so that the effective stop
is the same value.
The loss of performance of a lens designed for general use at 1:1
is due to the increase in coma and other aberrations because the lens
no longer meets the sine condition. A lens with fixed position
elements can meet this condition at only one object distance, and
therefore, only one image to object size ratio. By using a moving
elements or elements, its possible to make a lens which is closer to
the optimum over a wide range of object distances. Some Macro lenses
are made this way with either continuous movement of an element or one
which is moved to change the range of the lens.
Spherical aberration at the center of the image is quite visible
with some lenses under rather low magnification. Dagors, for instance,
have a large amount of residual zonal spherical which makes them soft
when wide open and also accounts for the "focus shift" for which they
are well known. Bright objects or highlights at the center of the
image (and everywhere else too) will have a bit of a cloud around them
when the lens is wide open. This cloud will change in size and
appeaance when focus is varied a little. It will shrink as the lens is
stopped down because spherical is proportional to the stop size.
I don't know why you are not seeing this on your optical bench but
think from previous posts that the microscope you are using may have
optical problems which mask what the lenses are doing.
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Optar/Tele-Optar serial numbers and production year
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003
"Suibu Liu" suibuliu@yahoo.com wrote
> Hi,
> I bought a Graflex Optar WA f6.8 90mm lens in a recessed board for 5
> Canadian dollars, and a 25CM Graflex TELE-Optar f5.6 lens for 30
> Canadian dollars today, both are mounted in Graphex shutters. The
> seller thought the WA90 did not work, thus the low price.
>
> I took the shutter speed ring off and sock the shutter with lighter
> fluid and it backed to normal.
>
> My question is, how can I find out which year these two lenses were
> produced? The WA 90 has a serial number 5786xx and the Tele Optar has
> 6153xx. Neither has the circle W mark, although the tele seems coated
> with a purple color but with the WA 90, I am not so sure since its
> elements are so tiny and hard to see the color of its coating (or lack
> of?).
>
> Thanks,
> Suibu
I have not been able to find a clue as to Wollensak or
Bausch & Lomb serial numbers. If anyone out there has
information I would be glad to have it.
The trade name Raptar was adopted by Wollensak in 1946
after a "contest" to find a new name. The previous
all-purpose Wollensak name was Velostigmat.
The name Optar was used by Graflex for lenses made for them
under contract. Most of these are Wollensak lenses but some
later ones are Rodenstock. Rodenstock Optars genrally have
the Rodenstock name as well as "made in Germany" on them.
Wollensak lenses vary all over in quality. This is a
matter of design not manufacturing QC. The Optar/Raptar
telephoto lenses are excellent, IMHO as good as any.
Wollensak Enlarging Raptars are dogs as are the 135mm, f/4.7
lenses used on Speed Graphics. These are very sharp in the
center but have excessive coma and need to be stopped down
practically to f/32 for corner sharpness.
OTOH the f/5.6 190mm Optar found on the Super-D Graflex is
also an excellent lens. I have no idea of why this is.
Not all Raptar and Optar lenses are coated. The use of the
trade names began about a year before Wollensak started
routinely coating their lenses and they were one of the
first.
My 15" Tele-Optar appears to be uncoated. It has a yellow
dot on it, something else I have yet to find the meaning of.
I don't have a Wollensak WA Optar to test but from others
experience they are pretty good lenses.
Again, I appeal to anyone possesing the secret of either
Wollensak or Bausch & Lomb serial numbers to contact me.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Bausch & Lomb Protar Series V 14X17 on ebay
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003
"David" dchamb@charter.net wrote...
> There is a 14X17 Protar Series V posted on ebay. Anyone know any
> information on this lens or what it might be worth.
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item;=2971106952&category;=30076&rd;=1
>
> Thanks
The Bausch & Lomb Series V Protar is a wide angle lens
with about 100 degrees coverage although B&L; once claimed
110 degrees. It is f/18 but the optimum stop is around f/36
to f45. My ancient B&L; catalogue does not list these lenses
by the image size. My guess is that this is either a No.7 or
No.7a. The focal length of the No.7 is 12-3/8 inches, the 7a
is 15-3/8th inches. I can't exactly date the lens but it is
probably from the late 1920's or early 1930's, certainly not
an antique.
One hopes the glass is in better condition than the
barrel.
The Series V Protar was once a standard wide angle lens.
They have pretty good performance. f/18 is not as dim as you
would imagine. The lens has the advantage over modern Biogon
type WA lenses of being very small and light weight although
its optical performance is not as good.
I have no idea of what this lens is worth. Not much as a
collector's item, it has to be judged as a usable lens,
which it is providing the glass is in good shape. Like any
other bit of used stuff its worth just exactly what somone
is willing to pay for it.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Xenotar design
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003
"Myron Gochnauer" goch@unb.ca wrote...
> Does anyone know whether Schneider changed the design of the Xenotar 80mm
> f/2.8 over the years?
>
> I have a Rolleiflex E that originally had a Xenotar 80/2.8 as the taking
> lens. The lens is useless (missing the front element) but the camera is
> still generally functional.
>
> Recently I was the high bidder on an ebay item that is described as a
> Xenotar 80mm f/2.8 in a barrel mount. The serial number indicates that it
> was made in about 1984. The Rollei was made in the late 1950's.
>
> I haven't received the lens yet, so I can't even measure the diameter of the
> front and rear elements.
>
> My question is this: If the front and rear lens elements of the new Xenotar
> appear to be the same as those in the Rollei, does anyone have any reason to
> believe I could not replace the old lens elements with the new ones?
>
> I haven't been able to find enough detail on the two lenses to determine
> whether they have exactly the same focal lengths, element spacings and back
> focal length.
>
> Unless they redesigned or recalculated the lens somewhere along the line,
> they should be the same. Rollei experts say that both the Planar and Xenotar
> 80/2.8's did not change from the 50's all the way up to the present except
> for lens coating. What I haven't been about to find out is whether
> Schneider used different formulations for the own, non-Rollei offerings of
> the Xenotar.
>
> Myron
I searched the Schneider patents from 1950 through 1998
for lenses of the five element Xenotar type. I found only
two patents for f/2.8 Xenotars, both issued to Gunther
Klempt, 2,683,398, (1953) and 2,683,395 (1952). These are
very similar but I haven't read the actual patents to see
what was claimed or what the difference is. There is one
other Schneider patent, that for an f/3.5 five element
Xenotar. Zeiss had a bunch of variations of this basic idea.
Lenses vary a little in production. For one thing, the
glass varies a little in its properties so slight changes
may be made to compensate. In any case, the elements or
cells of most lenses can't be directly interchanged without
some effect on performance.
The f/2.8 Xenotar was also sold as a lens for large format
cameras. Probably its design is the same as the Rolleiflex
Xenotar but its mechanical properties may be different, you
would have to actually look to see. If the lens cells are
different the edge shape of the elements may be slightly
different to match the cell. If you can get the lens to fit
the Rollei shutter it will probably be OK. Cell spacing is
critical, if the shutter is the same it will probably be OK.
In any case you must measure in in one way or another to
make sure.
After this, the focal length of the finder lens must match
the taking lens very closely if the finder is to track the
focus over its full range.
If you can get the replacement lens cheaply its worth a
try but I would not invest much because its chancey.
What I've said above is based on patent literature which
may not be representative of actual production practice.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Paragon Anastigmat 5.5"
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003
"J Stafford" john@stafford.net wrote ...
> "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > Paragon was used by Iles as a generic trade name for its
> > lenses. However, this is a Tessar type. I have one of this
> > odd focal length. It will cover 4x5 with not much margin.
> > Ilex was capable of building good lenses. I have several
> > Paragons; they are sharp lenses though not quite up the
> > Kodak Ektar series. Some have problems with lack of glare
> > stops causing reflections from the insides of the cells to
> > occur when used wide open. When stopped down a bit this is
> > blocked by the aperture. Ilex lenses were not cheap and were
> > not intended to be economy models.
> > Most well designed f/4.5 Tessars will cover up to about 65
> > degrees. The 127mm Kodak Ektar is common on 4x5 Speed
> > Graphics where it is covering 62 degrees. This lens will be
> > covering about 57 degrees. The "normal" focal length for 4x5
> > film is 152mm, remember, the film is slightly smaller than
> > 4x5 inches.
>
> Thank you, Richard. That's quite good news, and a real surprise to me. I
> will use the lens primarily at F8 which according to your comment should
> be about right. When I said 'economy model', I was referring to the source
> of the second-hand lens - another misinformed person like myself. :)
f/8 is about the minimum stop for an f/4.5 Tessar. All
have some coma. The best performance is at around f/11 to
f/22. Since coma gets worse as you move away from the center
of the image smaller stops are needed when working near the
limits of coverage.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: HOW TO TAKE LENSES OFF A COMPUR-P SHUTTER?
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003
"Radio913" radio913@aol.com wrote ...
> > There may well be a web site but I don't know of it.
> > Lenses are mounted in most shutters in screw mount cells.
> >The cell is the metal barrel that contains the glass lens
> >elements. The glass parts do not have to be removed from the
> >cell.
>
> Ok, in the unit i have, the glass element is part of a black metal jacket
> (that has the Schneider 135mm label on it). This black metal jacket has 2
> notches in it for unscrewing it from the outer chromed metal sleeve (this is
> the "Cell", right?).
>
> Are you saying that i don't need to unscrew this black jacket/lens from the
> out er "cell"? I couldn't remove it anyways.
> > Sometimes cells are hard to remove. Its helpful to use a
> >gripper like a rubber glove go give your hands better
> >traction. No tool should be necessary. In
>
> Ok, well, if the "cell" is indeed the outer chrome barrel, then indeed, i
> couldn't get it off, even with rubber gloves.
>
> This is very frustrating, because i feel i can do the job (i have the
> mechanical aptitude and a digital camera to make records), it's just that i
> don't know how to disassemble this thing.
>
> Help!
> Slick
If the part with Schneider on it is a ring in front of
the lens it is a retaining ring for the glass elements and
should not be removed. Schneider does use slots on their
retaining rings. Some lenses are marked around the outside
of the cell but I don't think Schneider does this.
Some cells are screwed directly into the shutter but
others are mounted using an adaptor tube. This tube is
screwed into the shutter and the cell is screwed into it.
Most press camera lenses are screwed directly into the
shutter. I think this one may just be very stiff. However,
without seeing it its pretty hard to know what to suggest.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: HOW TO TAKE LENSES OFF A COMPUR-P SHUTTER?
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003
...
There may well be a web site but I don't know of it.
Lenses are mounted in most shutters in screw mount cells.
The cell is the metal barrel that contains the glass lens
elements. The glass parts do not have to be removed from the
cell.
The cell mearly screws into the front and back of the
shutter. Often, the shutter will have adaptor tubes. These
are simply short tubes threaded on each end. One end is
threaded ito the shutter, the ohter end is threaded to take
the lens cell.
Sometimes cells are hard to remove. Its helpful to use a
gripper like a rubber glove go give your hands better
traction. No tool should be necessary. In some cases the
shutter will have to be removed from its lens board to get
the back cell off. It depends on how much of the cell sticks
out.
Ed Romney has some elementary books on camera repair. Not
the best written but unique and valuable for getting
started. See: http://www.edromney.com
Other sources are the reprint books on shutters and
cameras from John S. Craig and Petra Keller. Both are very
reliable dealers.
John Craig is at: http://www.craigcamera.com
Petra Keller is at: http://www.camerabooks.com
For working on shutters you will need a set of jewelers
screwdrivers. Servicable sets can even be found in the
grocery store but a hardware store is likely to have better
quality.
You need fine tweezers. Ideally, this should be Dumont
pattern made of non-magnetic stainless steel. They are
widely available surplus for not much. In liu of these one
can use regular eyebrow plucker tweezers.
Work in a box so that you won't loose any parts. Pill
containers are good for holding parts while you work. Small
screws, etc., can be stuck on a piece of sticky tape to make
them easier to find.
It is VERY helpful to have drawings and photos of the
shutter so you will know where things go. If you have a
digital camera take pictures while you work. Don't rely on
memory.
Suitable oil can be had from hobby shops who sell model
railroad stuff. I use a brand called LeBell. It comes in
three grades, use the thinnest. Another good oil but harder
to find is Nyoil, do a Google search to find sources. The
oil is applied to only a few places, mainly the trunions of
the gears and to the pallet of the excapement. A very small
amount is needed. Apply with a toothpick or use a very fine
brush. To use the brush put a drop or two of the oil on a
saucer and brush it out. Then pick up just a little on the
tip of the brush and put it where you want it. Watchmakers
use special oil dispensers but for occasional use you don't
need such fancy tools.
The best solvents are pure naptha. Ronsonol lighter fluid
works well. Hardware store naptha works for rough cleaning
but my not be pure enough to dry without leaving a residue.
You can dip the shutter in the solvent and blow it out
with canned air. You can also make a simple vapor degreaser
by putting some solvent in the bottom of a jar, putting the
shutter on a bit of screen and closing the top. Let this sit
in a warm place for a while. Then open and remove the
shutter.
Another solvent which works well is pure Isopropyl
alcohol. 99% Isopropyl is available in most drug stores. Do
NOT use rubbing alcohol, it has too much water in it. The
use of both Alcohol and naptha sequentially will insure
removal of all grease and oils from the shutter parts.
Shutters will often work dry (no lubricant) if very clean
and some shutters (Ilex for instance) are intended to run
dry. However, the life of the shutter and its speed
consistency will be better if properly lubricated. Some
shutters need additional lubrication. A very light dose of
Lubriplate to the speed ring for instance but in general
grease is not used in shutters. No lubricant should EVER be
applied to shutter blades or diaphragm blades. They must be
scrupulously clean. Even a very small amount of residue on
shutter blades will cause enough drag to significantly slow
down the shutter.
Extremely dirty shutters must be partially disassembled
to be cleaned adequately. Occasionally one must be
completely disassembled but this is a major job and most
shutters are difficult to reassemble. You definitely need
drawings and photos to do this. For the most part removing
the lens cells, front cover, and perhaps the speed ring, are
all that is necessary.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Postive News on HP Marketing
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003
Mark A wrote:
> OK, I will take you at your word. But it does seem strange (as other
> posters have also pointed out) that you seem so thrilled about getting
> warranty service that you paid for.
Doesn't seem odd to me. Schneider refused to make good on their "Lifetime
warranty" on an enlarging lens whose diaphram failed on me. They claimed
only the glass is covered while NO WHERE in their warranty does it say it
is limited to the glass, nor was this explained to me when I bought it. Too
many people always seem to find some way out of having to honor their
warranty now a days, good to see someone who actually stands behind their
products..
--
Stacey
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: quality ? - dual size lens
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003
"bk" bkondrak@yahoo.com wrote ...
> is this mode of making a lens like 150/300mm - taking off the rear
> element to create the change in size - does it yield a good
> performance in both sizes?
The performance of the single cells is never as good as
the complete lens although the performance may be good
enough for some applications.
Most convertible lenses are of a symmetrical or
semi-symmetrical design. In a lens symmetry automatically
corrects coma, lateral color, and geometrical distortion.
These corrections are lost when only one cell is used.
Some convertibles have been made with an attempt to
correct the individual cells for one or more of the above
aberrations. The Convertible Protar for instance is
corrected for coma. Compare this to the Dagor which is not
corrected for coma. While the Dagor was patented and sold as
a convertible the image quality of the individual cells is
very poor until stopped down to f/45 or smaller. The
_complet_ lens is coma free due to its symmetry.
The Convertible Symmar appears to have some attention
payed to coma correction, but I find the individual cell
performance to be inferior to the old Zeiss Convertible
Protar, though not by much.
Convertible lenses were popular from around 1900 to the
1930's because they were economical and much LF work was
contact printed.
Best performance for single cell is had when they are
_behind_ the stop. The stop position affects some of the
aberrations. However, the stop position is probably not
optimum. Since the principle points of thick meniscus lenses
lie on the surface or outside the lens they are slightly
retrofocus when behind the stop and slightly telephoto when
used in front of it. The bellows draw is minimised when the
lens is placed in front of the stop. This is sometimes more
important than the slight loss of image quality from this
position.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Longest lenses on Crown Graphic lens Board
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003
"Jdunn" jdunn@sbcglobal.net wrote
> Thanks for the replies.
> I guess I need to know more about the design of these
> lenses. I thought that longer (than the diagonal)
> focal lengths were automatically telephotos. ie.
> the magnification was strictly a function of the
> focal length.
> Is there somewhere that explains these issues ?
>
> I was thinking that the back focus was the distance
> from the optical center of the lens to the
> film plane when focused at infinity. I guess the
> designers can manipulate where the 'optical center'
> falls thus making a lens which needs
> less bellows extension,
> (changing the flange mounting depth?).
Telephoto lenses can be made in any focal length.
The back focus is the distance from the rear apex of the
lens to the image when focused at infinity. There is also a
dimension called _flange focal distance_ which is the
distance from the lens flange to the image at infinity.
What you are calling the "optical center" of the lens is
the rear principle plane or point, or second principle
plane or point. This is where the image appears to originate
from if one traces the rays of light forming the image back
toward the lens. I can be inside the lens somewhere or can
be outside of it. For telephoto lenses a negative lens is
placed behind the image forming lens. Just as if you look
throught a telescope the wrong way, it makes the image
forming lens appear to be further away, so the optical path
is made to seem longer. The results are that the physical
lens can be closer to the image. The opposite arrangement is
used in retro-focus or reverse telephoto lenses. These are
further away from the image plane at a given focused
distance than a standard lens of the same focal length.
Retro-focus lenses are very common on single lens reflex
cameras due to the long minimum distance from lens to film
requred to clear the mirror box.
Both telephot and retro-focus lenses are by nature very
non-symmetrical making their design more difficult. Symmetry
automatically corrects for coma, lateral color, and
geometrical distortion. A non-symmetrical lens must be
corrected for these aberrations in some other way so they
tend to be more complex and more expensive for a given
performance level than a standard lens.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Anyone know about Wray lenses?
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003
"Dan Fromm" danielwfromm@att.com wrote
> "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote
> > "David Nebenzahl" nobody@but.us.chickens wrote
> > > Specifically, their 89mm wide-angle lens (like this one
> > currently on that small little online auction site:
> > >
> > > I know they were sold by a British outfit, but who made
> > these lenses? Are they any good? Coverage?
> > >
> > I don't have specific information about this lens. Wray
> > was a well known British lens maker for many years. They had
> > a patented design called the Lustrar; a four element air
> > spaced design. It was a curious variation of the Celor and
> > double Gauss. My old lens list shows only one Wray WA lens
> > but its not this one. Its a reversed WA Protar.
> > I can't read the speed from the photo (its pretty blurry)
> > but it may be f/6.3 or f/6.8 suggesting its a double Gauss
> > like the Kodak Wide Field Ektar. If the shutter is original
> > it probably dates from the late 1950s to 1970s.
> > I don't know if Wray is still in business but think it was
> > absorbed by some other company quite some time ago.
>
> According to the Vade Mecum, it is a 4 element Gauss (similar to a WF
> Ektar) and is roughly competitive with the 90/6.8 Angulon. Covers
> 4x5. Lower contrast than the Angulon.
>
> Cheers,
> Dan
If uncoated it would have lower contrast than an Angulon.
The Angulon is a variation of the Dagor with four glass-air
surfaces. A double gauss of the WF Ektar type has eight
glass-air surfaces. An uncoated lens with 8 glass-air
surfaces has a significant amount of flare. I can't tell
from the eBay illustration if this is a coated lens. If the
shutter is original it is since the type of Synchro-Rapid
Compur shows is a mid-1950's shutter and nearly all lenses
were being coated by then.
Thanks for verifying my guess. I realized later I could
have looked in Cox but didn't think of it at the time.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: largformat@aol.com (Largformat)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Speaking of Fujinon 90 mm lenses
Date: 16 Oct 2003
Subject: Speaking of Fujinon 90 mm lenses
From: "Jos. Burke" josburke@bellsouth.net
Date: 10/16/2003
Well I'm in a bit of a dilemma. I just received a very very nice Fuji 90 mm
f8 SW ($350 Ebay) and have also in transit a Fuji 90 mm SWD f5,6 ($550 Ebay
#2954705221 and if you look I'll not be needing that Cambo recessed board.
Hint Hint!). Don't ask!!! I bid on both --got both. I'm not telling any
more!! Does the faster lens need a center filter!!
I'll use both, make my choice, sell the other. Yes, my current filter size
for most of my LF (and MF) lenses is B&W; brand 67 mm--big plus for the f/8
version. OTOH I sure like focus and composition on a bright GG. Any one
here used the faster lens? preferrences!! Filter size on that f/5,6 version?
thanks,
one90mmlenstoomany
I have never used a center filter on either a 90mm or a 75mm lens. There were
times the image may have gotten a little darker up around the edges but this
simulated the effect of subtle buring and I did not worry about it.
The 5.6 model will have a little extra coverag - approc 236mm image circle vs
216 for the f8 model.
steve simmons
From: slberfuchs@aol.com (Ted Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 16 Oct 2003
Subject: Re: Fujinon 90mm f/8 SW
I used this lens for years. Good performer, no falloff and no need for a center
filter. Both these comments apply to field use with moderate movements.
Ted Harris
Resource Strategy
Henniker, New Hampshire
From: "John Hughes" hugho@verizon.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 90mm F8 Wide field Caltar?
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003
Caltar does not manufacture lenses. It is the trade name for lenses sold by
Calumet, but manufactured by another entity under contract to Calumet. Do
you know if it is an Illex Caltar or a Rodenstock Caltar? I believe
Schneider also manufactured them for a brief time.
I have a 90 mm Illex Super Angulon clone from about the mid 1970s and I love
it. It is not the brightest lens, so focusing in dim light can be
problematic, but it is sharp and provides a good image. Alas, it is not
threaded for filters. So far as I know, it is indisguishable from the
Caltar (except, of course, for the fact that it says Illex on it).
From: John j_d@darkroompro.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 90mm F8 Wide field Caltar?
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003
"John Hughes" hugho@verizon.net wrote:
>I have a 90 mm Illex Super Angulon clone from about the mid 1970s and I love it.
The Accugon. I have one. It's very good.
John
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Constrution 210/370 converitble Symmar? Compur disassembly?
Date: 19 Jan 2004
"John Hendry" pict@pict.co.uk wrote
> Does anybody know what the element construction for a Schneider 210/370
> convertible Symmar is? I'm especially interested in the rear element and
> whether cemented doublets are present. The rear element has what appears to
> be strange blobby spider shaped patterns in places, and I'm wondering if its
> a surface fungal issue or its in a balsam layer. Photo here..
> http://www.johnhendry.com/rpelf/symmar.jpg
>
> On a separate issue does anyone know the diasassembly/reassembly procedure
> on a Synchro Compur #1 . I just need to get the cam plate off to address an
> issue with the shutter open lock mechanism. Note sure how to describe the
> vintage of the shutter but here is a shakey snap
> http://www.johnhendry.com/rpelf/compur1.jpg
>
> As an aside, once the camplate is off, is the slow escapement easily
> removable as it is with copal's? It's dragging a bit and could use a clean
> and lube.
>
> Thanks.
> John
The f/5.6 Symmar is a Plasmat type lens. The front and rear
components are two cemented elements. This appears to be separation in
the cement. The lens has a removable front and rear retaining ring.
There may be a spacer under the component. I would check it to make
sure the "stars" are not fungus on the surface inside the cell rather
than being in the cement. When synthetic cement separates it usually
looks like large bubbles. If this is fungus clean it off with ammonia.
If you look at the center ring of the shutter you will see a cam
shaped disc with two holes in it. this is the lock. Use a fine needle
nosed pliers to twist this until its flat side faces the retaining
ring. The ring is in a bayonet type mount and when the lock is turned
the ring will turn 1/3rd turn and come out. When out it will allow
removing the cover plate and stop scale. When this is removed you will
see the inside part of the speed ring and cam. This can be lifted out.
You can get a factory manual for late Compur shutters from Petra
Keller at http://www.camerabooks.com I strongly suggest having a
drawing of the shutter before disassembling it.
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: will a 360mm F5.5 Tele-Xenar cover 5x7?
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004
"J. C. O'Connell" hifisapi@gate.net wrote...
> I have been using subject lens with great results on 4x5 for some time
> now but I just bought a 5x7 folder. Will this lens cover 5x7?
> I have two of them, 1931 vintage in barrel and 1951 vintage in shutter.
> JCO
I've had some private correspondence on this which I
should pass along here. The old f/5.5 Tele-Xenar is listed
as having a coverage of 48 degrees. This is quite large for
a telephoto and is enough to cover an 8x10. The slower
faster version of the lens is rated at 35 degrees, plenty
for 5x7 for a 15" lens.
I have a Wollensak Tele-Optar, of probably the same
general design as the Tele-Xenar (two cemented components of
two elements each). It will _illuminate_ an 8x10 but the
image quality beyond about an 8 inch image circle is pretty
bad. It will cover 5x7 with good quality. For 4x5 it is an
excellent lens.
The 1951 vintage may be of a different design and may have
narrower coverage but better quality. In the 1950's
Schneider was making outstanding lenses, quite different
from their pre-war reputation.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: @@@ Sweet Spot Aperture for Tominon 127mm ?
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004
Dr. Slick wrote:
> Ok, so this newbie would presume that there is not an "all-in-one"
> 4x5 lens for close-up work AND landscape work, or is there? As it
> seems you can do close-ups and landscape no problem with most 35mm
> lens i have used.
The problem you ran into is a poor lens. That 135mm xenar you have is
useless for closeup work or landscapes! A modern 135mm plasmat lens would
do both with acceptable quality as would a -good- tessar design. The xenar
you bought was just a dog of a lens. Just like there are macro specific
35mm lenses, the same applies to LF.
--
Stacey
From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: @@@ Sweet Spot Aperture for Tominon 127mm ??????????????
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004
"Dr. Slick" radio913@aol.com wrote
> Ok, so this newbie would presume that there is not an "all-in-one"
> 4x5 lens for close-up work AND landscape work, or is there?
As pointed out before, a Tessar formula lens will, in general,
have a flat field suitable for copy work and will be sharp
at close distances.
It was, in the old days, common to use camera Tessar lenses on
enlargers; the Leitz Valoy being originally designed to use a Leitz
Elmar lens.
Get a 152mm Kodak Ektar. Cheap.
For macro work you can reverse any old GP lens. For strictly copy
work an enlarger lens will work just grand.
If your budget will stretch to it, a 4-element copy lens -- such as
an Artar -- will work superbly at normal distances.
Stay away from 4x5 Xenars (personal experience, YMMV), anything
from Wollensack/Graflex and anything modified from another
application (i.e. Tominon Oscilloscope lenses, Ysar Polaroid
lenses ...) - there are exceptions to this rule, but why bother
worrying about them.
--
Nick Lindan
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Has anybody heard of a "Rival" LF lens? Also Wollensak Series IIIa question
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004
"DuganFoto" duganfoto@aol.com wrote
> Hi, everybody,
>
> I found and purchased a Rival Doppel-Anastigmat, 240mm f6.8 today, in a Betax
> #3 shutter....it appears to be uncoated.
> I did a Google search, which turned up nothing. Searching under 240mm f 6.8
> Doppel Anastigmat turned up lenses by Meyer-Gorlitz and by Goerz, but alas, no "Rival"
> Have any of you heard of, or had any experience with this lens?
> Any help would be appreciated...
>
> I also picked up a Wollensak 4x5 Series IIIa 3 1/2" f 12.5 lens in an Alphax shutter.
> A Google search turned up only an 8x10 version of the lens...
> Viewing through it is INCREDIBLY dim...I expected this, it being a 12.5, but
> the unusual thing is that the aperture scale goes from 12.5 down to 45,
> however, the 12.5 setting is not wide open...the aperture blades are only about halfway open.
> Is this normal, to correct for lens aberrations, or is my aperture scale way out of whack?
> Does anybody have one of these? Again, any information would be helpful...
>
> Thanks!
>
> Doug Allen
I can't help with the "Rival" lens.
Check the aperture of the Wollensak lens by measuring the
entrance pupil. This sounds technical but is actually very
easy. You need a card with a small hole in it and a
flashlight or other small light source. You can do this in
your view camera.
First, focus the lens exactly at infinity. To do this
place a small mirror over the front of the lens. Put the
card with the hole in back of the lens. Adjust the distance
until the spot of light refected back throug the lens is in
sharpest focus. The lens is now focused exactly at infinity
for the card. Set the spot of light so that it is near the
source, of course, if its exactlly at the source you can't
see it.
Now that you have the lens focused for infinity place a
sheet of paper over the front (remove the mirror) and note
the circle of light projected onto it through the lens. This
is the image of the iris as seen from the front. Measure its
diameter. This is the _effective_ diameter of the stop.
Divide this by the focal length of the lens. If its not 12.5
something is wrong. I suspect the iris doesn't open any
further because the elements of the lens may be a little
oversize to prevent vignetting.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: ? about oddball 75mm lens
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003
"David Nebenzahl" nobody@but.us.chickens wrote
> 75mm Wollensak Oscillo-Amaton in Alphax shutter:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item;=2961329083&category;=30076&rd;=1
>
> Judging from the name and from the 3-speed shutter (25/50/100), is this lens
> made for photographing the screen of an oscilloscope? Possible to use on a
> view camera?
> --
> Until I have some idea who these folks are, I have to assume they're all
> the same person.
>
> - "RicSilver", resident village idiot from ba.transportation.
This is a new one to me. Most of the Wollensak
oscilloscope lenses are Oscillo-Raptars.
They are fairly fast lenses meant for use in oscilloscope
cameras for photographing traces directly from the tube.
This has been supplanted by oscilloscopes with direct
printer outputs.
The lenses are designed for a single working distance
typically for a reduction of about 3/4 original size to work
with Polaroid film. They are sometimes interesting to
experiment with but generally have limited coverage and poor
performance when used at infinity focus.
All the companies who made OEM lenses made these guys,
Wollensak and Ilex are particularly common but there are
also Rodenstock oscilloscope lenes. Typically, the shutters
are low cost ones since they were used mainly to cap the
lens. These days oscilloscope cameras, and even the
oscilloscopes they worked on, make good door stops.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Bell & Howell 154mm Lens
Date: 22 Feb 2004
"Terry" terryk2@bellsouth.net wrote
> I have an old (believe 1940's) Bell & Howell Type I - 6 inch - f/2.5
> E.F.L. 154mm lens. Anyone know what it is or was used for? Thanks, Terry
It is probably a 6" fixed-aperture version of the 7"/2.5 Aero Ektar.
B&H; made them, and I've seen one other on eBay last year. There was
recently a 6"/2.5 fixed-aperture Aero Ektar on eBay, too.
Cheers,
Dan
[Ed. note: vade mecum lens database on CDROM diskette lists thousands of LF lenses... ]
From: dcolucci@aol.comspam (DColucci)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.large-format
Date: 23 Feb 2004
Subject: FS: Huge book Lenses ( book on CD )
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item;=2989385876
[Ed. note: those who religiously use lens coverage charts may want to consider this issue!]
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004
From: "Reciprocity Failure" something@4nothing.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Optimum Aperture for 150mm G-Claron?????
The specs of the G Claron lenses don't reflect their covereage because the
design of the lens is such that the coverage continues to increase as the
aperture is stopped down. There's a more detailed and technical discussion
of this aspect of the G Claron design on the Wisner web site in the Q and A
part. But the end result is that the G Clarons have much greater coverage
than their published specs indicate, not because Schneider is conservative
with its coverage numbers (though it might be, I don't know) but because of
the design of the lens. The 210 G Claron, the specs of which would indicate
that it can't be used at all on 8x10, actually can not only be used but used
with a good bit of room for movements when stopped down.
"John" use_net@darkroompro.com wrote...
> jcpere@aol.com (JCPERE) wrote
> >>: tom@microlightphoto.com (Tom Monego)
> >>The 4 element Apos G-Claron, Apo Ronar, Apo Artar
> >The G-Claron is a 6 element lens. Stopped down to f45 a 150 will cover 5x7 at
> >infinity and beyond.
> >Chuck
>
> I'm surprised since it is reported to have only 192mm @ f22.
>
> Regards,
> John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
> Please remove the "_" when replying via email
From: slberfuchs@aol.com (Ted Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 20 Feb 2004
Subject: Re: Schneider Symmar
Sandy also note that the Symmar-S came in two versions a single coated and
multicoated version. The muylticoated version is so marked. Further, the
Caltar II S lenses are Symmar-S lenses manufactured for Calumet by Schneider.
Ted Harris
Resource Strategy
Henniker, New Hampshire
From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004
From: Leigh Solland solland@telusplanet.net
Subject: Re: Folding camera lens questions
Jon Hart wrote:
> --- Alan Myers AMfoto1@aol.com wrote:
> > The Collectors Guide to Japanese Cameras lists this camera with a
> > 13.5cm "R.R." lens. Does anyone know what "R.R." means?
>
> Alan,
> R.R. generally refers to Rapid Rectilinear. I
> can't remember exactly how the group/element ratio
> goes, but it is symmetrical in design, can't deliver
> decent performance at apertures wider than about f/8,
> and was one of the first lens designs to really
> attempt (and succeed somewhat) to eliminate
> astigmatism and other lens abberations. The somewhat
> later Tessar design blew it out of the water, of
> course, as well as many Cooke-type triplets,
> especially in the ability to be used at wider
> apertures than the R.R. could achieve.
Guys,
I found the following notes from Richard Knoppow in the alt-photo-process archives.
It seems to cover it well, so I will reproduce it here to save Richard some typing:
The Rapid-Rectilinear is a symmetrical lens with two
cemented elements in each cell. The type was invented
simultaneously and independantly by Steinheil (as the
Aplanat) and Dallmeyer (as the Rapid Rectilinear) in 1866.
It quickly became the most commonly used lens. R-R type
lenses were made by practically all lens makers under a
great variety of names. They continued to be made up to the
early 1930's for use in inexpensive folding cameras. Bausch
& Lomb built millions of them for Kodak. I can't even guess
the date of this lens, the mounting probably would give some
clue.
The R-R is not an anastigmat, it was designed before the
high index low dispersion glass of Schott of Jena was
developed. Some backward curving field curvature is used to
average out the astigmatism. The lens must be used at fairly
small stops for the corners to be sharp.
Well designed R-R lenses can be quite sharp and quite
usable lenses. Both names refer to the lack of geometrical
distortion, a feature of symmetrical lenses.
R-R lenses were made as standard and wide angle types. The
coverage is partly a matter of the choice of glass. The
length of the barrel for a given focal length is a clue. The
longer the barrel the more limited the coverage but the
better the image.
I have no idea of the value of the lens as a collector's
item. At a guess, there were too many R-R lenses made for
the type to have any special value although very old lenses
may have value simply due to age. It is probably more
valuable as a usable lens.
From: "AArDvarK" noway@yourprob.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: "Aristostigmat" ???
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004
My neurotic block of text:
I have taken a keen interest in classic lenses like
some of you might be into. I am very interested
in studying on these jewels so I can learn what is
worth buying at all price levels. i.e. Charles P.
Farmer once told me years ago, in person, that
some of the old wollesaks are very nice and sharp,
and yet generaly they sell at lower prices as much
as I have seen online, and I don't know which
ones they are. What I need are resources online,
an online museum of sorts or an enthusiast's site
that will explain all these kinds of things about
old lenses ... I can imagine it is like a cult interest
that exudes the essence of glass quality and
formula engineering, quality of the grind and
everything else, no matter the country is, they
were made in (mostly Germany I think ...). These
kinds of sites seem to elude any search term I
can come-up with. Like ... where can I learn
exactly what "Aristostigmat" means ... ???
Thanks all,
Alex
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Rodenstock-Ysarex recalculated Tessar design/construction info? (R Knoppow ?)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004
"Murray" Murray@multi-volti.com wrote...
> Hello:
>
> I bought a box of several apparently unused Rodenstock-Ysarex 127 mm
> f/4.7 front cells.
>
> There are 2 elements in it, the front being a meniscus (concave-front,
> concave rear, roughly 45-50 mm f.l.), and the rear element being
> double concave (I thought the 'front' of the rear element was planar
> but found about 0.025" height with a dial indicator.
>
> Does anyone (Rich Knoppow?) know what elements was in the rear portion
> of this lens, and which elements were the porportedly 'hot' glass?
> It's supposedly a recalculated Tessar and presumably still has 4
> elements in 3 groups.
>
> I am trying to find an experimental use other than replacements for
> scratched Polaroid 110B's.
>
> I did unscrew the front cell from a Polaroid Tominon 127 mm f/4.7 and
> was able to focus it at (very) approximately the same distance as the
> Tominon - very unscientific test, handheld, projecting a light bulb
> onto a cinderblock. I was just trying to find SOMETHING it would focus with.
>
> Thanks
> Murray
I haven't been reading the Usenet groups regularly lately
so pardon the delay.
The Ysar and Ysarex are Tessar type lenses. I don't know
the difference between the lenses sold under these two names
other than the Yserex seems to be common on Polaroid cameras
and oscilloscope cameras.
A Tessar has a front element consisting of a nearly
plano-convex lens in the front and a bi- concave in the
rear. The combination has little power and is negative. The
rear element is a bi- concave and bi-convex lens cemented.
Sometimes the surface facing the stop is nearly plano. The
rear has most of the power, the front has most of the
corrections.
If these cells have positive power, that is if they
magnify or can project an image, the lens is NOT a Tessar
but probably a double Gauss of some sort. There are two
types of four-element air-spaced lenses found commonly. One
is the Celor or Dialyte type. This has elements which are
all bi-convex or bi-concave. The outer elements are
bi-convex, the inner ones bi-concave. This is the generic
type of the Apo Artar, Kodak f/7.7, 205mm Ektar or K.A.,
Goerz Dogmar, etc. The other is the double-Gauss type. In
these all the elements are meniscus with the concave
surfaces facing the stop. This is the generic type of the
Kodak Wide Field Ektar and many other medium wide-angle
lenses. Both have been used for general purpose lenses and
for copy lenses. The Dialyte has rather narrow coverage, the
double Gauss rather wide coverage. I think someone on this
group identified the Tominon as a Dyalite not too long ago.
I have no idea of which element(s) might be radioactive.
In any case the radiation from most older Lanthanum glass
elements is very low. The radioactive substance is Thorium.
Thorium was added to the Lanthanum to modify its optical
properties, usually in very small amounts. Some lenses have
been made with significant amounts of Thorium glass, mostly
special purpose military lenses. One needs to take care
about some older aerial mapping lenses, but consumer type
camera lenes are generally not hazardous.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Kodak Ektar 127mm lens
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004
"Neil Purling" sextant@sextant.karoo.co.uk wrote...
> Most of these sort of lenses are lousy 6 ft or less so the target has to be
> something at normal taking distance. I think a wire fence would also work,
> but a brick wall is usually flat & you can see how sharp the mortar joins
> are.
That is quite a statement! I haven't found it true. Kodak
Ektars hold their corrections very well down to nearly 1:1.
Zeiss Tessars also work well close. Actually, six feet is
"normal" distance for general photography. Most general
purpose lenses, which are 'optimised' at infinity are
actually optimum at something like twenty to fifty times
focal length to get a compromise over a wide range of
distance.
The "optimum" comes from the fact that its not possible
to correct a lens for both spherical aberration and coma at
more than one distance. Usually, coma is the aberration
which becomes apparent at other distances. Since both
spherical and coma vary with the stop stopping down will get
rid of them in a reasonably well corrected lens.
Most of the lenses used on press cameras are very good.
The requirement was for very sharp images virtually anywhere
in the field and for lack of focus shift, a necessity where
rangefinder focusing is used. The poorest performers are the
Wollensak Raptar, also sold as the Graflex Optar. These, in
my experience, have excessive coma for some reason although
they are very sharp in the center of the field and have
virtually no focus shift. However, an F/4.5 Ektar or Zeiss
Tessar will be free of coma at around f/8 to f/11 where the
Raptar/Optar must be stopped down to f/22 or even smaller.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: large format lens resoluton
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004
"Gary Banuk" gjban@comcast.net wrote ...
> Is the resolution of large format lenses the same as small and medium
> format lenses?
>
> I have often wondered about this.
>
> Also: Is the extra cost of a schneider, rodenstock or Nikon lens worth
> it. compared to the price of, lets say, a Caltar lens?
Very early (c.1960s) Caltars were made by Ilex. They are
very good quality lenses. Later Caltars were made by
Rodenstock and others and are identical to the product sold
directly by the manufacturer.
The question about resolution is tricky since resolution
is not the primary test of a lens used for pictorial
purposes. The limit of resolution of any lens is diffraction
at the stop. The diffraction limit also varies with image
angle, becoming less as one moves away from the center.
Some aberrations vary with the aperture, mainly spherical
aberration and coma. Coma results in a directional smear
which increases with image angle and is very unpleasant to
look at. As a lens is stopped down the resolution will at
first increase, especially away from the center, due to the
reduction of aberrations. Then it will beging to incrase due
to diffraction. The better the lens is corrected the larger
this stop will be. For many lenses is it around two to three
stops down from the maximum aperture.
Some aberrations scale with focal length due to
magnification by the lens. This tends to result in higher
resolution numbers for short foccal length lenses, but
overall comparison depends on the degree of correction of
the lens. There are some LF lenses which will produce quite
high resolution, say 100 line pairs per millimeter, near the
center of the image, or even more. Lenses for 35mm still
cameras, and lenses for motion picture cameras, often
produce more than this but despite what Hemi claims I think
around 200 lp/mm is the practical limit. Again, this is
diffraction limited by the stop and by image angle. Getting
60 lp/mm on film is doing very well although its possible
with some modern films and very good lenses to get nearly
100 lp/mm. Remember that the combined resolution of film and
lens is less than either. When both are equal the result is
half of either, so, given that about the best high contrast
resolution possible on any common film is around 200 lp/mm
one really can not expect more than about 100 lp/mm on a
negative. I would say that typically you would have about
half this.
Because they are not magnified much LF negatives can look
very sharp with relatively low resolution. There is some
controversy over the exact numbers but if you can get about
5-10 lp/mm on a print viewed at "normal" distance (the
diagonal of the print approximately) it will look very
sharp.
Hemi and I have had a long standing argument about his
claim than most 35mm camera lenses will do 500 lp/mm and I
don't want to start it again; its in the Google archives for
those who want to see it. I don't think at this point either
of us will convince the other.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Sharper Copy Lens for Crown Graphic???????
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003
Richard Knoppow wrote:
> "Dr. Slick" radio913@aol.com wrote
>> So i guess i could try either the 127mm Tominon or the
> APO-Ronar.
>> What do you folks think?
>> Slick
>
> An Apo Ronar would work fine. I have no idea what the
> Tominon is.
Found this on the tominon 127 doing some searching, I know they are
optimised for copy work.. Couldn't find anything showing their specific
design in a google search as far as how many elements, they either have 3
or 4.
----------
If the lens is mounted in the shutter, (shutter iris in the middle) it is
for a MP-3 or CU-5, if the lens is mounted on the shutter, that is a
complete lens barrel screwed on to the front of the shutter, it is for an
MP-4. the 105 is, as I understand it a tessar formula lens. The 105 is
really designed for the beginning of macro photography with the MP cameras.
the 127 is the "normal" lens for regualar copying and then there is a range
of smaller sizes all the way down to 17mm for 10x macro shots.
-----------
Also found where it does cover 4X5 even at infinity so should have no
problem with copy distances. Another poster was talking about these being
sold as "flat field" lenses like enlarging lenses are. I've been using a
105mm ysaron (not ysarex, it's a different lens made for infinity use) for
enlarging for years and when I tested it against a 135mm enlarging lens I
bought for 4X5, I saw no improvement in resolution or contrast. The ysaron
and tominon were suposed to be interchangable on those cameras, just
different manufacturers.
Even the 105mm should be OK at the distances he's talking about but the
127mm would give more working room for lighting. These are a great deal as
most sell for under $100 mounted in a shutter as very few people have any
idea what these are or how good they work!
--
Stacey
From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Sharper Copy Lens for Crown Graphic???????
Date: 29 Nov 2003
radio913@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote
> My artwork Sizes range from 8.5"x11" to about 4'x3'.
> I usually end up about 0.8-1.8 meters away or so. Right now, I am
> using a 135mm/4.7 xenar, and under a loupe, the results seem like they could be
> a bit sharper.
> Then tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote
> >
> > Tessars aren't generally considered particularly good lenses for copy work;
> > they are almost always optimized for infinity and their corrections depend
> > on the subject distance. A better choice would be a lens actually meant
> > for copy or tabletop work, such as an Artar, Apo-Ronar, or G-Claron.
>
> And someone else also mentioned the APO-Ronar.
>
> And, Stacey mentioned this:
> "Again like I posted in another thread, look around for a 127mm tominon. They
> are pretty cheap and were designed for the type of work you are doing.
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item;=2963509709&category;=30076
>
> Bet this one goes for under $100 and this is they type you want, already
> mounted in a shutter."
>
> So i guess i could try either the 127mm Tominon or the APO-Ronar.
> What do you folks think?
> Slick
If you get the Tominon, stop it down to at least f/16.
Another alternative is to get a decent grade of 6 element enlarging
lens. Doesn't matter which, but a Componon's cells should go straight
into a shutter.
Or, as has been suggested, a process lens. G-Clarons' and
Repro-Clarons' cells go straight into shutters, so do some but not all
Apo Ronars and Kowa-Graphics (= Computar = Kyvytar).
The key thing is, you'll need a lens in shutter or that can be put
into shutter. This rules out, or, rather, makes less attractive
otherwise appealing repro camera lenses like Ultragons (Eskofot
Ultragon = Staeble Ultragon = Repromaster = Helioprint), Apo Nikkors,
Konica Hexanon GRIIs, ... Unfortunately getting one of these things
and having it put in shutter costs more than getting, say, a G-Claron
in shutter or a G-Claron AND a shutter.
Cheers,
Dan
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Sharper Copy Lens for Crown Graphic???????
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003
...
An Apo Ronar would work fine. I have no idea what the
Tominon is.
If you can rig a front or rear shutter a good enlarging
lens is ideal for this kind of work. Its often not too
difficult to makeshift a mount for getting a barrel mount
lens to mount on the front of an old shutter.
The lens on the camera has been optimized for infinity and
may not be the sharpest lens to begin with. Enlarger lenses
are optimized for the distances most often used for the
format. Lenses for 4x5 are usually optimized for a
magnification of around 3 times those for 35mm for about ten
times. The range is pretty great so its not critical. Modern
enlarger lenses are very well corrected so will be as sharp
as any other lens you can use for the application.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Image diameter ....?
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003
"Art Reitsch" ar7500@olympus.net wrote
> I can't find a reference on this, so am I thinking straight? A 4x5
> film, taking the longer dimension, is 5inches = 127mm. So if a lens
> has an image diameter of 127mm or more it will cover 4x5, right? And
> the larger it is, the more movements permitted? So on, say, a 75mm lens
> what would be a reasonable minimum image diameter for some modest
> movements for landscapes?
> Thanks.
> Art
A "normal" lens has a focal length equal to the diagonal
of the format. For 4x5 _film_ that is about 152mm (6
inches). Sheet film of 4x5 and larger is slightly smaller
than the "nominal" size to allow its being used in adaptors
in glass plate holders.
Many 4x5 press cameras have 127mm or 135mm lenses because
press photographers prefered to have slightly wide angle
lenses. Since the lenses were used well stopped down for
depth of field anyway a normal lens of the Tessar type would
provide this coverage. However, they are working right at
their limit of coverage. If you want movements you must use
either a longer lens or a true wide angle lens, that is, one
with coverage substantially larger than the format diagonal.
One reason that Dagors were so popular for view camera use
is that they will cover nearly 90degrees. Modern Plasmat
type lenses, like the Rodenstock Sirronar or Schneider
Symmar, cover a minimum of 75 degrees and the newer ones
more, so they are, if not true wide angle lenses, certainly
wide field.
Dagors are inferior in correction to Plasmats but are much
smaller and lighter, probably not a problem for 4x5. Tessars
will cover about 60 degrees maximum but it varies a little.
Generally, the faster the lens the less it covers.
Wider angles are gotten with other designs of lenses. Most
modern true wide angle lenses for press and view cameras are
of a type based on a lens by the Russian designer Roosinov.
This type has less fall off of light than the standard
design of lens.
A general answer to your question is that the maximum
coverage angle of a lens depends on its design. Some lenses
have much larger image circles for a given focal length than
others. On the small side one has lenses like the Goerz
Artar or Dogmar with about 48 degree maximum coverage and on
the other hand a lens like the current Super-Angulon with
perhaps 105degrees. Obviously, the shortest focal length
that can be used with a particular format size depends on
the type of lens.
"Normal" coverage is about 53 degrees. You can calculate the
angle a lens covers for a given format dimension from:
Angle = 2*arctan [(size/FL)/2]
Where size is any image dimension of interest, normally the
diagonal but can be length or width if you want to know the
viewing angle.
Note that perspective is dependant exclusively on the
camera position with regard to the subject. Once the camera
is placed the focal length does not affect the perspective
only the size of the image on the film.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 75mm Tominon f 4.5
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004
Dan Fromm wrote:
> "geo" no@no.com wrote
>> Does the 75mm Tominon f 4.5 cover 4x5? Anybody know the image circle?
>>
>> Natural Light Black and White Photography
>> http://mysite.verizon.net/geost/
>> -George-
>
> It is a macro lens for the Polaroid MP-4 system. On the MP-4 it will
> cover 4x5 at magnifications between 2:1 and 4:1, is usable on cameras
> with longer bellows up to 7:1.
>
> At infinity it won't even cover 2x3. The one I tried on 2x3 at
> infinity wasn't acceptably sharp (my subjective standards) in the
> center of the field at f/16 and f/22,
Neither is the ysaron 75mm. It covers 6X6 but at infinity isn't good, even
stopped way down. The 105mm is about the same thing, but does cover 6X9.
Both are -very- good for macro use!
--
Stacey
From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 75mm Tominon f 4.5
Date: 16 Jan 2004
"geo" no@no.com wrote
> Does the 75mm Tominon f 4.5 cover 4x5? Anybody know the image circle?
>
> Natural Light Black and White Photography
> http://mysite.verizon.net/geost/
> -George-
It is a macro lens for the Polaroid MP-4 system. On the MP-4 it will
cover 4x5 at magnifications between 2:1 and 4:1, is usable on cameras
with longer bellows up to 7:1.
At infinity it won't even cover 2x3. The one I tried on 2x3 at
infinity wasn't acceptably sharp (my subjective standards) in the
center of the field at f/16 and f/22, was much worse in the corners.
There are no inexpensive wide angle lenses for large format.
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wollensack 15" f/10 Apochromatic
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004
"Ken Smith" aldenphoto@aol.com wrote...
> Is this worth having a lensboard drilled? I was thinking of trying it
> on the 5x7 for a bit of a tele feel, but if it's one of those dogs
> that pass as enlarging lenses, maybe not.
Its an apochromatic process lens. Process lenses had to
meet quite high standards so its likely a very good lens.
Wollensak was capable of making excellent lenses, I don't
know why some of their post WW-2 lenses were so poor. This
is not an enlarging lens although process lenses work very
well for enlarging.
A true apochromatic lens is corrected so that it comes to
a common focus at three colors and is corrected for
spherical aberration at two colors. Most lenses are
achromats, chromatically corrected for two colors and for
sperical for one color. While this doesn't mean that an
apochromatic lens is necessarily better than an achromat
apochromatic process lenses are generally slow, symmetrical
types with excellent correction for all aberrations. They
were designed for making three color separation printing
plates where the thee images had to be of the identical size
and very sharp. Most of these lenses are of the four element
air spaced type known as a Dialyte. One property of a
Dialyte is that its corrections do not change much with
change in object distance so they generally will perform
well at infinity focus even though designed for unity
magnification where object and image distance are the same.
However, dialytes also have rather narrow coverage, usually
an image circle no larger in diameter than the focal length
of the lens. I don't have information on the specific
construction of this lens.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: largformat@aol.com (Largformat)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 05 Dec 2003
Subject: Re: Thanks
Subject: Re: Thanks
From: "geo" no@no.com
Date: 12/5/2003
Wait! Is the suggestion box closed? LF lenses always confuse me. There's no
obvious way to tell coverage for example. What about shutters? Which barrel
lenses are good candidates for being shuttered? Is it economical? And the
telephoto vs. non-telephoto telephoto lenses. What's that all about? I'm
sure this is old hat to veterans but to encourage newcomes these things need
to be explained occassionally.
We've done articles on telephoto lenses, mountng lenses into shutters, etc. We
have compiled our lens articles on a CD which is available. We are also
compiling a chart that we will begin publishing in the Jan issue showing every
lens we can find with the coverage (image circle size) weight, shutter size,
weight, etc).
We will also start a series on setting up and using the view camera for
beginners. There are a few books you might consider as well
User's Guide to the View Camera by Jim Stone
Large Format Nature Photography by Jack Dykinga
Using the View Camera that i wrote for Amphoto
And, no, the suggestion box is not closed. Keep sending ideas.
thanks
steve simmons
From: "Sherman" sherman@dunnam.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: How good is a Caltar 210mm F/5.6 II-N lens??
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003
"Mark Baylin" bp171@FreeNet.Carleton.CA wrote
> Hi there, I am considering the purchace of a
> 210mm F/5.6 Caltar II-N lens and was wondering if
> anyone could tell me if I'm giving up anything
> compared to lenses of the same focal length
> from Nikon, Rodenstock, ect... (I've heard
> rumours over the years that the Caltar II-N
> series IS a Rodenstock...).
>
> As I don't want to compromise on quality,
> I just want to know if I can expect this lens
> to perform as well as the other "name" brands
> from this era and price range of used lens.
>
> Thank you for any opinions in this matter!!
>
> Mark
> --
> p
The Caltar IIN series lenses are Rodenstock Sironar N lenses. So compared
to a Rodenstock you don't give up anything. I own three Caltars, two of
them (210 5.6 and 90 6.8) in the IIN series and they are all excellent
lenses.
Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Are All Schneider 90mm Angulons the same ?
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003
"James Dunn" jdunn@augustmail.com wrote ...
> I have been looking at a 90mm for my 4x5 crown graphic..
> I see some of these were the 'normal' for the smaller
> 2 1/4 - 3 1/4 camera. Are they all really the same
> and will they cover 4x5. Apparently early ones
> were not coated or single coated. Any info on
> how to tell them apart would be appreciated.
Angulons cover about 90 degrees with decent image
quality. The circle of illumination is larger than this,
over 100 degrees, but the image quality falls off pretty
rapidly beyond about 85 or 90 degrees. When Angulons were
first sold Schneider claimed 102 degree coverage but that's
really just the circle of illumination. In fact, the Angulon
is a variation on the Dagor lens. The coverage of a Dagor is
not much less. Goerz claimed 87 degrees at f/45. Wide Angle
Dagors will cover about 100 degrees at f/45. A 90mm lens on
a 4x5 camera has an angle of about 85 degrees at infinity
focus so the Angulon will cover it well at around f/36 to
f/45.
The first Angulons (1929) have a design problem. I have
one of these which exhibits pretty bad color fringing. The
effect shows up when the patent data is analysed in a lens
design program. Evidently, Schneider re-designed the lens at
some later date because later Angulons do not show the
fringing.
Angulons were coated in the last years of their
production, after about 1946 or 47. Schneider seems to have
been one of the first German companies to coat lenses. Since
the Angulon has only four glass-air surfaces it has pretty
low flare even when uncoated. I think all of the coated ones
are single coated since it was probably discontinued before
multiple coating was introduced. In any case, multiple
coating would have only a minor advantage for an Angulon.
The main virtue of these lenses (and W.A.Dagors too) is
their small size and light weight. Lenses of the
Super-Angulon, Grandagon, Biogon, type are substantially
better lenses at the price of size and weight.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: p2macgahan@compuserve.com (P. MacGahan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: large format lens resoluton
Date: 4 Apr 2004
Gary Banuk gjban@comcast.net wrote
> Is the resolution of large format lenses the same as small and medium
> format lenses?
>
> I have often wondered about this.
>
> Also: Is the extra cost of a schneider, rodenstock or Nikon lens worth
> it. compared to the price of, lets say, a Caltar lens?
It depends on the lens. Lenses vary, sometimes a lot. New lenses where
you know they have been carefully treated vary less than ones selected from
ebay, or from a junk box.
Over the years I've tested quite a few Symmars, Symmar-Ss, angulons,
grandagons, Wollensaks, Dagors, various Zeiss lenses, and Nikons. The
Symmars vary a lot.
I encountered a Nikon factory rep. at Photokina, some years ago and asked
him whether I could see the MTF of their large format lenses. His reply was
that they were just as sharp as the 35mm. lenses. Well, I am still a little
skeptical, but when I tried some, I was very impressed (particularly the SW
lenses).
Trying before buying is a good policy. Good examples from off-brands can
be great values if you find on. Duds from the major manufacturers make
really interesting paper weights (oddly, not many of my friends like to
discuss paperweights).
From: "Neil Purling" sextant@sextant.karoo.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Graflex! a question
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004
When it comes to talk on how good or bad the standard issue lenses for the
'Crown and 'Speed it depends on how far you are going to test them.
A 127mm Ektar ought to manage to produce a reasonable 20x16 when well
stopped down f16, f22).
It depends on how sharp the corners are going to be.
Now I have no acquaintance with the Wollensak 135mm.
These lenses weren't meant to be used to make exhibition enlargements to be honest.
Perhaps someone can tell us what newspapers did in order to make printing
plates from the image and what size enlargement they worked with.
I don't know if the originator of the post won the camera in question. I
think a Pacemaker 'Speed would be a better option so you can use barrel lenses.
I own a 'Crown myself & was looking at a old 6 1/2" f6.8 Goerz Dagor.
However getting SK Grimes to mount it in a shutter was as expensive as
buying a modern lens on the used market.
The 135mm Xenar is still only a basic 4 element, 3 group 'Tessar' type and
MAY suffer from unsharp corners. It should be some improvement on the
Wollensak lenses but that all depends on how its been treated.
I was more concerned that the bellows were good when bidding on my Crown
Graphic.
From: kirkfry@msn.com (Kirk Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: large format lens resoluton
Date: 29 Mar 2004
Folks,
Another point, with large format lenses most photos are taken in the
f22 range due to the problem of limited depth of field. At f22 the
maximum resolution a lens can generate due to diffraction is about
50-60 lines/mm. I once did a whole series of lens tests using the Air
Force resolution targets at a 20 to 1 subject to film ratio. At f22
you could not tell the difference in the negatives if they were not
labeled when examined with a microscope. They were all about 50
lines/ mm. From a 90mm Angulon all the way out to a 480mm Artar. I
did not carefully examine the extreme corners as my targets were not
out there and getting everything paral1el would have been a challenge.
There may have been some differences out there.
The point is that few us take pictures of flat things where we can use
f 5.6-8.0. and where the theoretical resolution would be higher.
Somewhere around about 1910 Zeiss figured out how to make a large
format lens that could do 50 lines/mm at f22 at least down the middle.
Nikkon sells a similar design today called an M Nikkor 300mm which is
really the old Zeiss Tessar design.
Modern lenses have better coatings, higher constrast and more high
quality coverage, not necessarily better resolution since that limit
was reached at the beginning of the last century for f stops we care
about in everyday pictures.
"Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote
> "Gary Banuk" gjban@comcast.net wrote...
> > Is the resolution of large format lenses the same as small
> and medium format lenses?
> >
> > I have often wondered about this.
> >
> > Also: Is the extra cost of a schneider, rodenstock or
> Nikon lens worth
> > it. compared to the price of, lets say, a Caltar lens?
> Very early (c.1960s) Caltars were made by Ilex. They are
> very good quality lenses. Later Caltars were made by
> Rodenstock and others and are identical to the product sold
> directly by the manufacturer.
> The question about resolution is tricky since resolution
> is not the primary test of a lens used for pictorial
> purposes. The limit of resolution of any lens is diffraction
> at the stop. The diffraction limit also varies with image
> angle, becoming less as one moves away from the center.
> Some aberrations vary with the aperture, mainly spherical
> aberration and coma. Coma results in a directional smear
> which increases with image angle and is very unpleasant to
> look at. As a lens is stopped down the resolution will at
> first increase, especially away from the center, due to the
> reduction of aberrations. Then it will beging to incrase due
> to diffraction. The better the lens is corrected the larger
> this stop will be. For many lenses is it around two to three
> stops down from the maximum aperture.
snip
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Graflex! a question
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004
"Orso babele" sabenelQUESTONO@tin.it wrote
> Hi everybody
> I'd like to buy a crown graphic special, but how can I
> know if a model has the Graflock back or not.
> Serial number?
>
> thx
>
> Sam
There is no way you can tell for certain from the serial
number. Only very early Pacemaker series cameras had spring
backs. By about 1950 or 1951 all Speed and Crown Graphic
cameras has Graflok backs but many cameras were re-fitted
for Graflok backs later. Its a relatively simple job and the
backs were not expensive when new.
There is great confusion about Graflex serial numbers
beginning about 1950. The numbers were issued in batches,
some numbers were never used, and some batches were issued
twice. AFAIK, this has never been straightened out. In
addition, some pages of the serial number record are
missing.
About the only way to determine if a particular camera has
a Graflok back is to ask the seller. You will have to make
sure he/she knows what you mean.
The Crown and Speed Graphic Special was the standard
camera equipped with a Schneider Xenar lens. Xenar lenses
are not among the standard lenses offered with the cameras.
Graflex sold Kodak Ektars and "Optar" lenses as standard
equipment on Pacemaker and later cameras. Optar lenses were
originally rebranded Wollensak Raptar lenses, avoid them.
Later Optar lenses were made by Rodenstock and are of very
good quality. These have the Rodenstock name and "Made in
Germany" on them. The Xenar lenses used on the Special are
also of good quality although I think the Kodak Ektar was
easily the best of the standard lenses.
The Graflex org web site will help to identify models.
Although the data there is not complete it is nonetheless
very helpful.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 150mm G-Claron the WRONG lens for Over 25" Paintings?
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004
"Dr. Slick" radio913@aol.com wrote
> Hi,
> I got a hold of a brochure for the G-Claron:
>
> "The normally used range of linear magnification is between
> 5:1 and 1:5. ...the G-Claron may also be used for distances up to
> infinity by stopping down to f/22 or less."
>
>
> Ok, so if i understand this correctly, the reduction is 1:5, so if
> you take the largest side of 4x5, this would be a maximum of 5x5=25"
> on the largest side of the painting.
> So i was taking about 35" images @f16, so perhaps this was out of
> the range of the lens? Or perhaps i really needed f22, even at this
> size, and not just for infinity?
>
> One fellow at KS said that the G-Claron is mainly for really up
> close marco work, like product pics of wallets and purses and stuff
> like that. And that some people use it for landscape work when
> stopped down more than f/22, because it's a very light shutter and lens.
>
> Then he recommended a 150mm Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-N, and didn't
> charge me for the rental because the pics i took with the G-Claron
> didn't turn out (nice, eh?).
>
> Said this would be good for 8.5"x11" up to 3'x4', as well as infinity.
> The brochure says the optimum aperture for 4x5 is f16-22.
>
> I'll try f16, f22, and f32 tonight!
> Slick
It should work fine for the paintings. They are not much
out of the optimum correction range. The main aberation
picked up when outside of the optimum object to lens
distance is coma. Coma is proportional to the f/stop so
stopping down gets rid of it. You should be able to work at
f/16 without any loss of quality at the corners.
The APO Sironar-N may or may not be a better lens but its
optimised essentially for infinity (actually for around 20
feet) so the G-Claron is actually more nearly in its optimum
range.
To find the widest f/stop you can use look at the corners
of the image. Check using a small bright highlight, even a
pen light at the corner. When wide open the image may have a
slightly tear-drop shaped smear. As you stop down it will
shrink and finally disappear. That's the largest stop you
should work with. Symmetrical and semi-symmetrical lenses
are automatically corrected for coma when the entire system
is symmetrical but have very substantial cancellation of
coma even at infinity focus. Field flatness and other
aberrations should not be a problem.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Bob Salomon bob_salomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Results of 150mm Apo-Sironar N Lens for Copy Work (Versus Tominon)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004
radio913@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ok, i took trannies at f16, f22, and f32 (11 sec). And with the
> Apo-Sironar N, the f32 looked the sharpest. The brochure said f16-22
> would be the
> sharpest, so i don't know if this one pic was a fluke.
> But it's surprising considering the risk of camera shake at such a
> long exposure time.
>
> Even at f22, the Apo-Sironar was a tiny bit sharper than the
> Tominon 127mm.
> But it really is a bit hard to tell, even with my 10x loupe...perhaps
> the difference will be more noticable when i scan it, but the Tominon
> is pretty close. Interesting Note: The Schneider Xenar was STILL
> sharper in the center of the field! I will definitely keep the Xenar
> for 6x6 film work.
>
> I will use the Apo-Sironar trannies, as they are the most sharp
> and even overall.
>
> BUT, would it really be worth spending $450-550 for a used
> Apo-Sironar, versus the $40-60 of a Tominon? I dunno if it's really
> worth it, to tell the truth!
>
> The other one i was considering was a Rodenstock 127mm, f4.7-45,
> in a prontor i believe? I local repair shop wants $195 for it...
> Slick
The Apo Sironar N is corrected for working ranges from 1:10 to infinity.
It was not made to be a copy lens. For superior copying results you will
need either the Apo Ronar at f22 or an Apo Macro Sironar at 1:5 to 5:1.
From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Results of 150mm Apo-Sironar N Lens for Copy Work (Versus Tominon)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004
Dr. Slick wrote:
> The other one i was considering was a Rodenstock 127mm, f4.7-45,
> in a prontor i believe? I local repair shop wants $195 for it..
That's the same lens as the tominon, if it's a ysaron, except it's made by
rodenstock. I've only used the 105mm version on 6X9 but it's a nice close
up lens as well.
And you're right I don't think an APO-sironar-n is worth the price
difference. For $60 the tominon is hard to beat.
--
Stacey
From: radio913@aol.com (Dr. Slick)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Results of 150mm Apo-Sironar N Lens for Copy Work (Versus Tominon)
Date: 16 Feb 2004
Hi,
Ok, i took trannies at f16, f22, and f32 (11 sec). And with the
Apo-Sironar N, the f32 looked the sharpest. The brochure said f16-22
would be the
sharpest, so i don't know if this one pic was a fluke.
But it's surprising considering the risk of camera shake at such a
long exposure time.
Even at f22, the Apo-Sironar was a tiny bit sharper than the
Tominon 127mm.
But it really is a bit hard to tell, even with my 10x loupe...perhaps
the difference will be more noticable when i scan it, but the Tominon
is pretty close. Interesting Note: The Schneider Xenar was STILL
sharper in the center of the field! I will definitely keep the Xenar
for 6x6 film work.
I will use the Apo-Sironar trannies, as they are the most sharp
and even overall.
BUT, would it really be worth spending $450-550 for a used
Apo-Sironar, versus the $40-60 of a Tominon? I dunno if it's really
worth it, to tell the truth!
The other one i was considering was a Rodenstock 127mm, f4.7-45,
in a prontor i believe? I local repair shop wants $195 for it...
Slick
From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Ektars for Hassy - do they really exist?
Date: 7 Feb 2004
Lassi Hippel,inen wrote:
>
> Zeiss didn't make the lenses. They licenced their technology to B&L; and
> a few others, but the licences didn't include Zeiss labels.
Come on, Lassi. B&L;, Wray, and Krauss (Paris, I believe) all made
Zeiss lenses under license and all badged them "Zeiss" and the lens
type, e.g., Tessar or Protar. When Zeiss' patents expired the
licensees went their own ways and stopped crediting Zeiss.
As for "Kodak Anastigmat", the words were applied to triplets,
dialytes, some tessar types, heliar types, and still others rather
more complex. The words mean anastigmatic lens made by or for Kodak,
and that's all.
"Ektar" was EKCo's word for "the best lens we make in this category"
and covered many designs.
I typed "tessar type" because if you look closely at the design you'll
see that in detail Kodak's lenses aren't quite tessars as originally
patented. And I typed "heliar type" because Altman's five element
lenses' designs as patented really aren't quite the same as Booth's
Pentac as patented and neither is quite the same as Harting's Heliar
as patented.
We have to be careful not to misuse words that have quite precise
meanings.
Cheers,
Dan
From: stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Are All Schneider 90mm Angulons the same ?
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003
James Dunn wrote:
> I have been looking at a 90mm for my 4x5 crown graphic..
> I see some of these were the 'normal' for the smaller
> 2 1/4 - 3 1/4 camera. Are they all really the same
> and will they cover 4x5. Apparently early ones
> were not coated or single coated. Any info on
> how to tell them apart would be appreciated.
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html#65mm_thru_125mm
Shows several samples tested and QC seems to be variable. Serial number
should tell age via schneider website.
These *barely* cover 4X5 straight on. I tried to use a 90mm on a standard
board on my super graphic (should be about the same as a crown in this
regard?) and it was a pain, too far back on the rail etc. Found a rare
recessed lens board to mount a 00 shutter SA 90mm f8 on and it's a joy.
I also have a small 100mm WF ektar that is nice but barely covers 4X5 as
well. Might be a better fit on one of these though if you don't have a
recessed board?
--
Stacey
From: camartsmag@aol.com (CamArtsMag)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 02 Dec 2003
Subject: Re: Are All Schneider 90mm Angulons the same ?
Subject: Re: Are All Schneider 90mm Angulons the same ?
From: "Gregory W. Blank" Whowill-hearawho@Hortons.net
Date: 12/1/2003
James Dunn jdunn@augustmail.com wrote:
> I have been looking at a 90mm for my 4x5 crown graphic..
> I see some of these were the 'normal' for the smaller
> 2 1/4 - 3 1/4 camera. Are they all really the same
> and will they cover 4x5. Apparently early ones
> were not coated or single coated. Any info on
> how to tell them apart would be appreciated.
have you tried
www.schneideroptics.com for info
View Camera is working on a comprehensive listing of every large format lens we
can find info on. The firts group will be 90mm and shoprter and this will
appear in our Jan/Feb 04 issue. The chart will cover image circle, weight,
vintage, coating(s) ?, etc.
steve simmons
From: camartsmag@aol.com (CamArtsMag)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 02 Dec 2003
Subject: Re: Fujinon 180 A serial number
I'm trying to figure out the year of production of a Fujinon 180 A
lens. I want to know if it's of the single coated or the EBC version.
Could anybody help me with the chronology of thid particular
lens?
It appears that if the lettering is on the inside near the glass it is not EBC
coated and if the lettering is on the outside then it is EBC coated. Although I
am a real fan of the 240A lens I was not as impressed with the 180A and infact
tested it against the 180f5.6 Fuji and chose the latter for infinity type work.
steve simmons
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Newbie question: lenses
Date: 1 Feb 2004
"Donn Cave" donn@drizzle.com wrote
> I don't have any lenses of this kind at all, but I believe I've
> read that they're relatively difficult to make well - something
> about precise centering of the cemented elements. And at any
> rate, for whatever reason, one lens might be quite a bit better
> or worse than the next. Whole different world from today's
> Schneider large format lenses like the Symmar XL.
>
> So, you never know, your odds are good but it's something to check.
>
> Donn
Cemented lenses must be centered so that all of the elements are
exactly coaxial and the axis is perfectly concentric. This is done
by precision grinding of the edges. The Angulon is particularly
difficult because the front and rear elements are larger than the
others. So, not only must it be accurately ground but the lens must be
clamped in a precision fixture after cementing.
All lens elements are centered but those to be cemented must have
much greater precision of gringing of the edges since the edge is the
reference surface for cementing.
The old procedure is to place the element on a tube of something
less than the lens diameter. The lens is held on by a thick resin. A
point source light is shown on the lens and its reflection observed
through a telescope. If the lens is not centered the reflection
rotates. The lens is moved on the tube until the reflections from both
surfaces stand still during rotation. The lens is then clamped by
another tube from the top and the edge ground so that it is exactly
concentric. In the usual case where the diameters of all the cemented
elements are of the same diameter the edge is used to clamp the lenses
together. The more elements to be cemented the more critical the
centering operation becomes. For air spaced lenses the precision of
the edge is not so important because it is not used to center the
lens. The usual method of mounting lenses is to clamp the element
between two rings, one on each side. The pressure of the rings on a
spherical surface will force the lens to be centered in them. The edge
has just enough clearance to allow this. This trick works only for
spherical surfaces, aspherical surfaces must be individually centered
in the mount by optical inspection methods.
Cemented lenses must also be individually polished to final figure
so that the cemented surfaces fit accurately. This, plus the
additional centering operation, and the additional operations needed
for the actual cementing, make cemented surfaces expensive.
Cemented surfaces were popular with lens designers before good lens
coatings became available. A cemented surface reflects very little
light so their use is a way of reducing lens flare. Lens coatings
reduce glass-air surface reflection to nearly the same level so air
spaced designs are much more popular now than before about 1945.
[ends w/o signature]
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Newbie question: lenses
Date: 1 Feb 2004
camartsmag@aol.com (CamArtsMag) wrote
> I believe this lens has an image circle of 154mm and an 81 degree angle of
> coverage (these numbers are taken from a secondary source, not from
> Schneider, so it's possible they're off a
> little.
>
> Any thought of identifying your secondary source? It might be helpful to the
> questioner and to others who might have the same question if they new of a
> place to go look for this type of info.
>
> steve simmons
The 81 degree figure is from the Schneider web site. This is for
f/16. At smaller stops the coverage is greater, up to about 90 degrees
at f/45. Schneider's claims for this lens have varied over the years.
Because of the oversize outside elements the coverage before
vignetting is quite large. Schneider's old claim of 102 degree
coverage is true for _illumination_ but the quality of the image is
poor beyond about 90 degrees. This is no greater than the Wide Angle
Dagor. The performance of the Angulon for distant objects should be
slightly better than the Dagor because of the slight assymmetry, I
don't know if this is true in practice. I think one reason the Angulon
has a bad reputation is Schneider's somewhat poor pre-ww-2 quality
control. However, that seems to have been turned completely around for
post-war lenses.
As I mentioned in my first post the original Angulon had a design
error. I don't know what they did wrong but the actual lenses show
large color fringing. A computer analysis of the patent prescription
shows a large amount of spherochromatism. I have a very early Angulon,
In fact it was built before the patent was issued and has a DRPa on it
(patent applied for). The serial number dates it at 1929. The color
fringing is bad enough to make the lens useless. Too bad, its in mint
condition. Later Angulons do not have this defect and are decent
lenses. I am quite puzzled as to how any production lenses could be
made with this awful performance. Surely, they must have discovered
the problem in optical shop models. I thought my lens was simply the
result of poor QC until the similar poor performance of the patent
design was pointed out to me. It would be interesting to hear from
others with very early Angulons about what their performance is like.
Angulons have the same problem with focus shift due to zonal
spherical aberration that Dagors do, this is inherent in thick
meniscus lenses of this general type.
Super Angulons, which are of a completely different type, are
superior in a lot of ways but are larger and heavier so the Angulon
remains a useful lens.
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004
From: "BCampbell" chickenlittle@theskyisfalling.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Newbie question: lenses
Ah, someone else like me who buys first and asks questions later. : - )
I believe this lens has an image circle of 154mm and an 81 degree angle of
coverage (these numbers are taken from a secondary source, not from
Schneider, so it's possible they're off a little). Since 161mm is about the
size of the image circle required to cover 4x5 you won't get any movement
to speak of with this lens. It just barely covers 4x5 when stopped down.
However, many people happily use this lens for landscape work since
movements often aren't necessary with that kind of work and its small size
makes it ideal for backpacking. If you do architecture, product photography,
or anything else that requires movements you probably should return the lens
or buy a second one with room for more movements..
"MikeWhy" mikewhy@my-deja.com wrote ...
> Hi. I'm brand new to LF, and just bought my first camera and lens. I have a
> question about the lens, a Schneider Angulon 90mm f/6.8. I know it's old;
> the serial number is is mid 5 million, making it a two years my senior. The
> trouble is, I can't seem to find any information about it on the web. What I
> did find conflicted with everything else. I'm looking for just the angle of
> coverage and coverage at infinity focus. It was mere curiosity before; now
> that I have it in my hands, I'm concerned. I have loupes with more glass
> than this lens has; it's not at all what I was expecting. Is this reasonable
> for a 4x5 wide angle lens? Will I get reasonable coverage and movement on
> 4x5? The camera hasn't arrived yet, so I'll have to wait a few more days to
> find out. In the meantime, you can help drive me crazy with more rumors and
> suppositions. What can you tell me about this lens I bought?
>
> Thanks.
> Mike.
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Newbie question: lenses
Date: 31 Jan 2004
"MikeWhy" mikewhy@my-deja.com wrote
> Hi. I'm brand new to LF, and just bought my first camera and lens. I have a
> question about the lens, a Schneider Angulon 90mm f/6.8. I know it's old;
> the serial number is is mid 5 million, making it a two years my senior. The
> trouble is, I can't seem to find any information about it on the web. What I
> did find conflicted with everything else. I'm looking for just the angle of
> coverage and coverage at infinity focus. It was mere curiosity before; now
> that I have it in my hands, I'm concerned. I have loupes with more glass
> than this lens has; it's not at all what I was expecting. Is this reasonable
> for a 4x5 wide angle lens? Will I get reasonable coverage and movement on
> 4x5? The camera hasn't arrived yet, so I'll have to wait a few more days to
> find out. In the meantime, you can help drive me crazy with more rumors and
> suppositions. What can you tell me about this lens I bought?
>
> Thanks.
> Mike.
Since I don't know what you expected its hard to address that. The
Angulon is a classic lens designed about 1929. It is a variation of a
type known as a Dagor. A Dagor is a lens with three cemented elements
in each cell. It is inherently a wide angle lens. While the powers of
the cemented elements in the Angulon are different from a Dagor its
properties are very similar. The outside elements of the Angulon are
made oversize to avoid mechanical vignetting (or shadowing) by the
lens mounting. The lens is also very slightly asymmetrical to improve
its performance for distant objects.
When the Angulon was first put on the market Schneider claimed a
coverage angle of 102 degrees at infinity focus. The lens will indeed
make a circle of light that big but the maximum coverage for good
image quality is only about 90 degrees. A 90mm Angulon will cover a
4x5 negative with just a little left over.
The original Angulon had a design defect. In fact, the design in the
patent is defective and very early Angulons evidently followed it.
These lenses have sever color fringing. Later Angulons (probably
within a couple of years) evidently used a revised design which does
not have this fault. I think (without looking) that this is actually a
fairly late lens.
More modern wide angle lenses have better performance than the
Angulon but the price is large size and weight. The Angulon actually
has very good performance. For maximum coverage it must be stopped
down a lot, around f/45 for 90 degrees, it will operate well at f/22
for smaller coverage. Its used wide open only for composing the image.
Some modern lenses employ a special design to reduce the fall off
of light with angle, the Angulon is too old to have this design so its
fall off is fairly severe. All "standard" design lenses fall off at a
rate proportional to image angle that is cos^4 theta, where theta is
the "half angle" that is the angular distance from the center of the
image to the point of interest. For a 90mm lens covering 4x5 (diagonal
of the film is 150mm) the angle is about 80 degrees and the fall off
is such that the corner illumination is about one third that of the
center.
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: 31 Jan 2004
From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: @@@ Sweet Spot Aperture for Tominon 127mm ?
Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com wrote
> Dean Van Praotl wrote:
>
> > Does that lens cover 4x5 at infinity?
>
> It might barely, but if it's anything like the rodenstock ysaron (which I
> think it is), the quality won't be very good. These were designed for
> close-up/copy work, are a fairly simple design and my testing/experience
> with the ysarons showed me, while they are good close-up lenses, they are
> poor for infinity type uses. My main experience was with a ysaron 105mm
> f4.5 vs a 100mm WF ektar on 6X9. The Ektar was -much- better at infinity
> while the ysaron was -much- better for close up use.
>
> Maybe someone who has used an actual tominon at infinity would know for
> sure, I'm just assuming these are similar to the ysaron.
>
> As far as the sweet spot for the tominon, I'd think f11-f16 would be the
> best to cover 4X5 well in close up use.
I can't address the 127/4.7 Tominon's fitness for use on 4x5, but I
have an ex-CU-5 one that I use on a 2x3 Speed Graphic. It is quite
good on 2x3 at infinity at f/16 and f/22. I've also tried ex-MP-4
75/4.5 and 135/4.5 Tominons at infinity on my Speed; they were lousy,
as in I won't do that again.
Hope this adds to the prevailing confusion,
Dan
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: B&L; Protar sets
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004
"Alan Davenport" spohn97220@netscape.net wrote ...
> I have a 48.5/60.0 cm B&L; Protar combination in a Betax #5 shutter. I
> have seen various Zeiss/B&L; Protar single elements for sale on ebay
> and I was wondering, How do I know if they would fit my shutter?
>
> ALan B. Davenport
Protar sets were sold to fit several shutters over time.
The original sets used B&L;'s version of the Compound and
Compur shutter, Wollensak shutters were used later. Zeiss
Protars are marked with the barrel size so you can match
them. I don't think the B&L; cells had similar markings. If I
am wrong those would tell you which cells will work
together. The other thing to do is ask the seller to measure
the thread end of the cell, at least for diameter.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Schneider Symmar's
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004
"AArDvarK" noway@yourprob.com wrote
> As far as less costly lenses go on the used market,
> older Symmar convertibles and the later "S" type,
> were either one apochromatic?
>
> And what was the "S" improvement about? Was it
> a supreme difference?
>
> Thanks all,
>
> Alex
No Schneider Symmars, including the current "apo" lenses
are true apochromats although they may be very well
corrected for color. Apochromatic is a formal term in
optics, it means a lens which is corrected for simultaneous
focus of three colors, and correction of spherical
aberration for two colors. The color correction is gotten by
the choice of glass types by the designer. While
apochromatic correction is no gurantee of improved
performance most apochromats are special purpose lenses with
great care given to their overall design.
German standards allow the use of the abbreviation APO for
lenses that are well corrected for color even though they
are acromats (corrected for only two colors). This is
unfortunate and leads to considerable confusion and
unnecessary controversey.
The old chrome barrel convertible Symmar is a very good
lens, often sold cheap on the used market. The later,
non-convertible version is a better lens because its design
is not compromised to make it convertible. Nonetheless, the
front or rear cell can be used alone at small stops with
decent image quality.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: opusstuf@aol.com (Bruce Jones)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Schneider Symmar's
Date: 9 Apr 2004
I bought a used Symmar 180mm f/5.6 convertible several years ago.
Made some photographs with it, but it was not crispy sharp, and the
shutter was sluggish. Shadows were also cloudy, with little detail.
After looking closely at the lens elements with a bright light behind
it, there was a film on some of the internal elements. Sent it to
Schneider in New York for cleaning. They were very prompt and
thorough. The lens was over 20 years old when I bought it, according
to the Schneider web site serial number log.
When the lens came back, it was very clean, with no visible gunk on
the internal elements and the shutter worked perfectly, even in low
temps. The photographs made thereafter were crisp and sharp, with no
noticeable flare even in direct sunlight. Deep shadows, clean
highlights and no visible flare. Overall center to edge coverage is
excellent on 4x5 film, even with significant shift/rise/fall
adjustments. With the 6x9 120 back, I can almost tear the bellows
with adjustments and see no fall off in coverage in the outer edges of
the image. It appears to have a multi coating, and flare in direct
sunlight is not an issue as long as a decent lens shade is used. I
use a flexible, square Lee Filters shade that cost a lot, but is worth
every penny.
To Schneider's credit (and my gratitude), they even marked the lens
barrel for f/64 and f/90 above the f/45 marked during manufacture. I
am quite impressed and happy with this lens, and would buy another one
in a heartbeat.
Have not tried it after cleaning with the front lens group removed to
increase the focal length to 315mm, but it was not very sharp in early
trials before cleaning. It is interesting, however, to use a 315mm
lens with a 6x9 120 film back on the view camera.
A Kodak publication on Large Format Photography mentioned that
convertible lenses were sharpest at or near minimum apertures. After
using the Symmar for table top product photography from f/8 to f/45, I
have not been able to see any difference in sharpness at any aperture
setting, using visual inspection with high quality 4x and 10x loupes
on a light table, or with drum and flat bed scans of 4x5 Ektachrome
transparencies at high resolutions.
We finally have cable modem service in our
From: Nicholas pooNOzledSPAM@yahoo.co.nz
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Schneider Symmar's
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004
AArDvarK wrote:
> As far as less costly lenses go on the used market,
> older Symmar convertibles and the later "S" type,
> were either one apochromatic?
>
> And what was the "S" improvement about? Was it
> a supreme difference?
>
> Thanks all,
> Alex
The Symmar was designed to be a convertible lens, the Symmar S is not...
Apparently the "S" is based on the Symmar but designed and modified not
to be used as a convertible lens and therefore improved for standard
use. From this article I am reading right now by Kramer in 1976 Modern
Photography, the improvement, in terms of image sharpness--is definate.
I know I used to own a Symmar which couldn't get a sharp image no matter
what I did (no flames please, my experience only).
From: Tom tom@localhost
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Schneider Symmar's
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004
S was single focal length. The old convertable Symmars compromised the design to
give better performance with the partial lens. Symmar S's were designed to give
better correction when using both elements. Early Symmar S's were single coated,
later ones multi-coated.
Apo's? I think they are only apochromatic in the advertising agency's mind, but
having never having used one that is hearsay only. The Apo Symmar is the newest
version.
--
AArDvarK wrote:
> As far as less costly lenses go on the used market,
> older Symmar convertibles and the later "S" type,
> were either one apochromatic?
>
> And what was the "S" improvement about? Was it
> a supreme difference?
>
> Thanks all,
> Alex
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wollensak-Raptar 135mm. F:4.7
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004
"Doug Joseph" dajoseph@aol.com wrote...
> I have two lenses. A Kodak EKTAR 127mm f4.7 and a Wollensak-Raptar
> 135mm. F:4.7. From what I have read the EKTAR is the better lens. I
> sent the EKTAR to Paul Ebel for a CLA. The Wollensak-Raptar looked
> fine to me, but I wanted to send it to Paul and have him test it out.
> Paul said that the shutter speeds were off and the 'T' setting did not
> work on the Wollensak-Raptar. The cost of the CLA is not a huge
> concern. My question is, is the Wollensak-Raptar lens worth saving?
> Is there anything special about this lens that it might be worth
> something as a backup or for some other use? Any comments are
> appreciated.
The Ektar is a much better lens. While the Wollensak
Raptar (also sold as the Graflex Optar) is very sharp in the
center of the field it has very excessive coma requiring it
to be stopped down to around f/22 to get anything like sharp
corners even for its normal format. I think the problem is
with the design rather than a quality control issue. I've
observed this problem with both 135mm f/4.5 Raptars and
101mm f/4.5 Raptars.
The Kodak Ektar series is of unusual quality. I've
encountered only one Ektar with which I have had optical
problems. This is a very early 101mm, f/4.5 lens. Actually,
its not at all a bad lens but has too much focus shift
making it unsuitable for use on a range finder camera
although it works fine where it can be refocused at the
working f/stop. I am pretty sure the problem is a small
error in the cell spacing. I have at least three 127mm,
f/4.7 Ektars all of which are very sharp lenses. One is an
early uncoated lens, another is a much later single coated
lens. The performance is similar except that the uncoated
lens has a weak ghost image of very bright objects in the
field. Neither of these lenses has significant focus shift.
I have some other Wollensak made lenses which have good
to excellent performance. For instance, the Tele-Optar
series they made for Graflex are excellent as is the 190mm,
f/5.6 Optar on my Graflex-Super-D. I don't know what is
specifically wrong with the Raptar/Optars made for press
cameras but they are not very good. Nor are the Enlarging
Raptars I've tried.
As far as shutters, the Wollensak Rapax/Graphex is a good
shutter. I don't think it is as rugged as the Kodak
Supermatic. The Supermatic was designed in the mid 1930's as
an alternative to the Compur. Kodak began using them
exclusively when Compur shutters became unavailable on the
outbreak of WW-2. My experience with the Rapax is that they
can be very accurate but have no real adjustments. If the
shutter is way off it one must replace springs and balance
the springs to get it into tollerance. Actually, Kodak
shutters do not have adjustments other than the tension of
the retarder spring. With good springs either shutter should
be reasonably accurate and repeatable but factory adjustment
was in the form of filing and swaging the speed cam,
something you want to avoid if at all possible. Wollensak's
original business was shutters and they made quite good
ones. Their lenses are highly variable.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Use a 105mm Ektar on a 4x5?
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004
"Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote...
> sanfelice02144@yahoo.com (SanFelice) wrote
> > I realize that there could be few - or no - movements when using such
> > a lens, but is it possible to use straight (w/no rise/fall?)
>
> It won't cover. The 101mm Ektar is a Tessar type. It has pretty good
> coverage but is not a wide angle lens. You will do better by finding a
> good wide angle. The 100mm Kodak Wide Field Ektar will just about make
> it for 4x5, a lens like a Super Angulon will do better. A 90 mm S.A.
> will cover 4x5 with plenty over for movements. The older versions of
> these lenses are very good even though not quite up to the current
> ones, and are generally available at reasonable prices. The older
> Angulon design will also cover but avoid the pre-WW-2 ones, they are
> quite variable in quality. The Angulon is not as good as the Super
> Angulon but is smaller and lighter, probably not a problem for a 90mm
> lens. Rodenstock Grandagons are also excellent lenses but do not show
> up used too often.
>
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk@ix.netcom.com
For some reason I read the original post as saying the
101mm Ektar. However, the above is also true of the 105mm
Ektar. The 105mm Ektar is a variation of the Heliar type,
that is, it has two cemented elements in both front and
back. The designer states in his patent that this was done
to improve rim ray correction. That would give better
correction for the lens used wide open. This design was used
for several Kodak Ektar lenses; the 105mm, f/3.7, made for
small press cameras; 100mm, f/3.5, used on the Kodak
Medalist camera; 50mm and 75mm Enlarging Ektars, and a
couple of others. They have excellent performance but have
somewhat narrower coverage than an equivalent FL Tessar
type, so the answer stays the same: they will not work as
wide angle lenses, thediameter of the image circle at
infinity focus is a little larger than the focal length.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Bob Salomon bob_salomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Sinaron -WE
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004
"jjs" nospam@please.xxx wrote:
> Who makes the Sinaron lenses, specifically the -WE lenses? Sinar?
All Sinaron lenses are Rodenstock.
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Use a 105mm Ektar on a 4x5?
Date: 6 Apr 2004
sanfelice02144@yahoo.com (SanFelice) wrote
> I realize that there could be few - or no - movements when using such
> a lens, but is it possible to use straight (w/no rise/fall?)
It won't cover. The 101mm Ektar is a Tessar type. It has pretty good
coverage but is not a wide angle lens. You will do better by finding a
good wide angle. The 100mm Kodak Wide Field Ektar will just about make
it for 4x5, a lens like a Super Angulon will do better. A 90 mm S.A.
will cover 4x5 with plenty over for movements. The older versions of
these lenses are very good even though not quite up to the current
ones, and are generally available at reasonable prices. The older
Angulon design will also cover but avoid the pre-WW-2 ones, they are
quite variable in quality. The Angulon is not as good as the Super
Angulon but is smaller and lighter, probably not a problem for a 90mm
lens. Rodenstock Grandagons are also excellent lenses but do not show
up used too often.
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 152mm f4.5 Ektar opinions
Date: 5 Apr 2004
"John Hendry" pict@pict.co.uk wrote
> "doug" dduthie@keepitsympatico.ca wrote ...
> (snip)
> > I use the 152mm f4.5 Ektar. Yes it's a Tessar. It is a good performer,
> > small, and sharp. I typically use it at f/16 or f/22, but have used it as
> > wide as f/11. Compared to modern plasmats it has very limited coverage for
> > 4x5 use ~ 182mm image circle (62 degrees) at f/22. This corresponds, on a
> > 4x5, to lens standard rises of approx 17mm portrait/ 20mm landscape at
> > infinity. I often run out of movements and have to tilt the lensboard back.
> > Still they're quite cheap. Frankly, I love all of the Kodak Ektars,
> > Commercial Ektars, and Wide Field Ektars - they are so consistently good
> > quality-wise.
> >
> > There is a good link for Ektar lenses with contributions from many including
> > the very knowledgeable and gracious Richard Knoppow:
> >
> > http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/ektar.html
> > Doug
>
> Thanks for the link and the vote of confidence in the glass. Coverage seems
> a bit tight. I just wonder why Kodak didn't employ a naming convention that
> bore some relationship to the specific lens construction like most of the
> rest of the planet. Mind you they seem to have adopted this logic with film
> recently. e.g. when is Tri-X not Tri-X? When its not the stuff left in your
> fridge.
> John
I will also vouch for the 152mm Ektar. However, check the cement in
the rear component on Ektars, I've found a couple where it was getting
a little turbid. You have to shine a flashlight at it or through it to
see the effect but it results in a substantial loss of contrast. When
clear these are quite contrasty lenses.
Kodak is not the only lens maker who chose to use a trade name to
indicate quality rather than construction. For Kodak Ektar was the top
of the line. The first Ektar was a Biotar type lens for the Kodak
Bantam Deluxe camera c.1936. Until 1946 Kodak used the names Kodak
Anastigmat and Anastigmat Special for lenses of lower quality than the
Ektar series. For the most part the difference is degree of color
correction. After about 1946 Kodak introduced several lens names for
lower quality lenses such as Anastar and Anaston. Ektanon became the
new name for most of the former K.A. lenses. Kodak claims that Ektar
lenses are completely corrected for lateral color.
For many years Wollensak marketed most of their better lenses under
the name Velostigmat. Velostigmats, like Ektars, were of several
different designs. In about 1946 a new name, Raptar, was adopted for
most of these lenses. Zeiss, in particular, had names for each
different design of lens but other makers, Nikon for instance, did
not. All Nikon lenses are Nikkors although older ones carry a letter
code to indicate the number of elements. Cannon doesn't even use a
separate lens name, just Cannon Lens.
All of the f/4.5 Ektar lenses for medium format cameras are Tessar
types. They have a coverage of nearly 70 degrees when stopped down all
the way and perhaps 65 degrees at f/11. The 127mm f/4.7 Ektar is
common on 4x5 cameras and is sharp in the corners at f/11. Commercial
Ektars are also Tessars, with a little more coverage than the f/4.5
lenses as would be expected from a slower lens. The 105mm, f/3.7 Ektar
and 100mm F/4.5 Ektar on the Medalist camera are modified Heliar
types. The older and rarer 107mm f/3.7 Ektar is a Tessar with reversed
rear component. This is supposed to be advantageous when high index
glass is used. I suspect this lens was not too successful since it
seems to have been replaced with the 105mm lens within a year or so.
The Wide Field Ektar is a double Gauss type AKA a Holostigmat. The
famous (or notorious) Aero Ektar is a seven element Biotar. A number
of other designs were used for Ektar motion picture lenses and for the
Ektars designed for the Ektra camera.
I have no idea why Kodak never made Plasmats. I think the main
purpose of the Ektar series, and certainly the Commercial Ektar, was
to sell color film by making sure lenses with excellent color
correction were available.
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: slberfuchs@aol.com (Ted Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 06 May 2004
Subject: Re: 300m Fujinon-C vs. 300mm Fujinon-A?
I use the 300 mm A multicoated and like all A users find it to be one of my
favorite lenses with superb resolution and contrast. I have never used the 300
C so can't make a comparative comment. There are significant design
differences in the two lenses though. The C being designed for optimal use at
longer ranges than the A (although the A performs flawlessly at infinity).
that said you will get much better performance from the A at distances
approaching 1:1. Next the A is a true Apochromat and the C is not. Most
importantly you will pay a lot more for an A used than you will for a C new.
You can buy a new C for 675-700 and you will pay more than that for a pristine
300 A. Having said all that I would not part with my 300 A and am always
looking for the longer ones .. the 360 - 600 and 1200.
Ted
Ted Harris
Resource Strategy
Henniker, New Hampshire
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: cooke-butcher lens mounted in Lukos express no 1a shutter
Date: Sun, 02 May 2004
"karl" exakta@postmaster.co.uk wrote...
> I have just bought a Horseman 970 outfit, to use along side my R/F outfit .
> But included in the outfit was a 6 INCH F6.8 COOKE-BUTCHER ANASTIGMAT
> LENS , my question is where was the lens maunufactured by who etc , i
> assume its only suitable for 6/9 type images . It was mounted in a
> shutter LUKOS EXPRESS NO 1A again who was the manufacture
> Is it worth my while using the combination or is this one for the
> collector if so any one interested.
>
> Thanks Karl
Butcher was a large photogaphic sales company in England.
The lens was probably made by Cooke, who is still in
business. For a time Taylor, Taylor, and Hobson was also
making lenses under the Cooke name. I have no idea what the
shutter is.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: kirkfry@msn.com (Kirk Fry)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What is available for WA for 8x10
Date: 27 Apr 2004
More: Widest lens ever made to cover 8X10. My entry:
Goerz
Hypergon No. Focal MM Format inches 1914 Price
0 60 5x7 $43.50
000a 75 8 x 10 $49.00
0 90 10 x 12 $52.50
0 120 12 x 16 $62.00
1 150 16 x 20 $72.50
2a 200 24 x 28 $91.00
000a w/o Star 75 5 x 7 $44.00
00 w/o Star 90 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 $47.50
0 w/o Star 120 8 x 10 $54.50
A 75 mm 000a Goerz Hypergon with Star fan. Don't you wish your Great
Grandfather had bought a dozen and put them in a lock box for you.
How about that 2a? They boasted an 1:31 f-stop.
Kirk
"sympatico.ca" sympatico@sympatico.ca wrote
> "AArDvarK" noway@yourprob.com wrote
> >
> > > In my infinite quest for infinite ways to spend money on a hobby,
> > > I now need to know what is available for WA for a 8x10 format
> > > camera. I am a WA user (24mm or less) in the 35 mm world. I am
> > > now foraging into the 8x10 realm. Any suggestions for a lens
> > > with lots of coverage?
> >
> > A simple base approach, simplisticly, normal lens on a
> > 35mm camera = 50mm, for an 8x10 it's 300mm.
> >
> > 1/2 of 50mm = 25mm, 24mm actual for your wide angle,
> > 1/2 of 300mm = a 150mm on 8x10. and simply so forth.
> >
> > Alex
>
> depending on how you measure/compare it (image diagonal/different
> proportions and so on) 24mm in 35mm equates to around 173mm to 194mm in
> 8x10.
>
> (useful excel tool here http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/lenses3.html - you can
> download it )
>
> There is also the feeling that many have (purely illusiory) that they don't
> need to use a lens as wide with 8x10 as they do with smaller fomats.
>
> 24mm is a much used lens by me in 35mm. In 8x10 my 210mm or 250mm often seem
> plenty wide enough. my 159mm/165mm lenses seem REALLY wide.....
From: john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Hurrell's camera
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004
"Bob Fowler" fowler@verizon.net wrote:
> There is an alternative to hanging a Packard on the front of your lens if
> your camera doesn't take a large lensboard or if you don't want to drill
> holes in your camera. Now wanting to permanently modify my camera, I built a
> box lensboard for my 5X7 Eastman #2 that contains the Packard and mounts my
> 14" Red Dot Artar. I put up a page on my website showing how I did it. If
> you're interested, you can see it here:
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/fowler/photo/packard2.htm
A _most excellent_ site. Thanks for that. Your design is elegant. Gosh I
wish more people would contribute such articles concerning home or
hand-made LF camera solutions.
One small point regarding the original concern for very large lenses:
IMHO, the front standard on the camera you show is not strong enough for
very heavy lenses. I have rebuilt the huge studio cameras, and the Century
#1 view. The later is wonderful, but typical of lightweight cameras,
rather fragile up front.
One way to manage a large, heavy lens on a lightweight front standard is
to mount the lens to the board near its balance point. This puts the lens
farther back and reduces bellows extension, but one can change those, too.
Here's an example using a _very_ heavy lens on a modest (albeit modern)
front standard. http://course1.winona.edu/jstafford/newlens1/index2.html
From: "Bob Fowler" fowler@verizon.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Hurrell's camera
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004
There is an alternative to hanging a Packard on the front of your lens if
your camera doesn't take a large lensboard or if you don't want to drill
holes in your camera. Now wanting to permanently modify my camera, I built a
box lensboard for my 5X7 Eastman #2 that contains the Packard and mounts my
14" Red Dot Artar. I put up a page on my website showing how I did it. If
you're interested, you can see it here:
http://mysite.verizon.net/fowler/photo/packard2.htm
--
Bob Fowler
fowlerphotography@verizon.net
"Peter De Smidt" pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote
> Steve Hamley wrote:
> > Peter,
> >
> > Thanks, I've considered it and I would like something a bit more
> > portable if at all possible - and the pictured camera seems to be so -
> > although I agree that for the largest lenses your assessment is
> > correct; that's exactly what these cameras are made for.
> >
> > I would like to end up with a camera as you suggest at some point, but
> > space prohibits it right now.
> >
> > Thanks again, Steve
>
> Well then, it depends on exactly which lens you'd like to use. If, like
> Hurrell, you want to use a 19" Wollensak Veritas lens, and you still
> want a fairly portable camera, then I'd get the sturdiest monorail
> camera that you can find. You don't need much in the way of movements.
> In fact, you don't need any movements on the front standard. You do
> need a camera with a big lensboard. I'd fashion a support device that
> supports the lens and puts all of the weight of the lens directly on the
> rail and not on the front standard. Use the back standard for movements
> and focusing. You will probably need a Packard or Sinar behind the lens
> shutter, and it'll need to be a big one. I think that the Packard on my
> Veritas is 10" square. You might have to hang it on the front of the lens.
>
> -Peter
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 7" dagor cells
Date: 14 Jun 2004
Andrew Frith andy@sacredjourneys.com wrote
> I guess this might be a question for Richard...
>
> I have both the front and rear cell for a 7" goerz double-anastigmat
> (seriesIII no.2)....i dont have the barrel for it..just the cells. the lens
> threads are 45mm, any ideas on what kind of shutter i might look out for to
> put these in? does anyone else have this lens? wondering how theirs is
> mounted?
>
> I have used sk grimes once in the past to remount a barrel lens into a
> shutter and their work was excellent, just wondering if its worth trying to
> save a bit of money first before I consider sending it off to the grimes
> boys?
>
> -andrew
The problem is that the cells were not screwed directly into the
shutter. They are used with adaptor tubes which establish the cell
spacing. The cells screw into the adaptor and the adaptor into the
shutter. If you have the adaptors too it may be possible to figure out
what kind of shutter they came from but not from just the cells.
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Makro-Plasmat?
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004
steven.sawyer@banet.net wrote ...
> Thanks for the info.
>
> Richard Knoppow wrote:
>
> > steven.sawyer@banet.net wrote
> > > Everytime I see the word "Plasmat" on a lens, I usually see a massive
> > > price tag. What's so special about "Plasmat" lenses or are they just
> > > collectible like early Elmars?
My long reply snipped....
There is some history of the Plasmat lens, including the
Makro Plasmat in _A History of the Photographic Lens_ Rudolf
Kingslake 1989 The Academic Press ISBN 0-12-408640-3 I
think this is out of print now but your library may have it
or be able to get it.
For those interested the Makro Plasmat is covered by USP
1,812,717 All U.S. patents are available from the
U.S.Patent and Trademark Office site at http://www.uspto.gov
You will need a plug-in to view the earlier patents which
are in the form of FAX tiff files. The best of them is
Alternatiff which is freeware. Do a google search to find
it.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Makro-Plasmat?
Date: 12 Jul 2004
steven.sawyer@banet.net wrote
> Everytime I see the word "Plasmat" on a lens, I usually see a massive
> price tag. What's so special about "Plasmat" lenses or are they just
> collectible like early Elmars?
Well, this depends on whether you are looking at lenses actually
named Plasmat or lenses of the Plasmat type. The original Plasmat was
designed by Paul Rudolph, who is also the designer of the Tessar and
Protar lenses. He designed the Plasmat in his later years after being
forced out of retirement by the extreme economic depression in Germany
following WW-1. He chose to work for Hugo Meyer, a relatively small
company, rather than go back to Zeiss, where he had done all his early
work. The Plasmat was one of the designs he produced for Meyer. While
Rudolph's original Plasmat was not a particularly good lens the
generic type is capable of outstanding performance and has become the
basis of nearly all modern large format camera lenses and nearly all
enlarging lenses for all formats.
The Plasmat is derived from the Dagor by air-spacing the inner
elements, which are cemented in the Dagor. This results in giving the
lens designer some additional degrees of freedom, namely two surfaces,
a spacing, and a thickness, to work with. The Plasmat, in comparison
to the Dagor and other similar cemented meniscus lenses, has very much
less spherical aberration, especially the zonal spherical that results
in the focus shift typical of the Dagor. The Plasmat is also capble of
excellent correction for astigmatism. It has nearly as wide an angle
of coverage as a Dagor despite the better performance.
Despite these advantages the Plasmat type was not popular with
designers until after good lens coatings became available. A Plasmat
has eight glass-air surfaces, compared to four for a Dagor, so it has
a tendency toward excessive flare unless coated. Since the development
of economical and rugged coatings the Plasmat has come into its own
and such lenses are now very common.
One reason old Plamats, I mean those made by Meyer, are expensive
is probably because they are rare, not many having been made. Some
recent Plasmat _types_ are expensive simply because they are modern
and rather expensive lenses. However, its easy enough to find middle
aged lensess of this type like the Schneider Symmar camera lenses and
Componon enlarging lenses, which are quite cheap on the used market.
The Makro-Plasmat was one of the early examples of this type and is
probably now a collector's item.
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lens Scratch
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004
"PGG" papagordygrapes@NO_SP_A_Myahoo.com wrote ...
> PGG wrote:
> >> Because its only one scratch it won't scatter enough
> >> light to make a difference. It would be better if it weren't
> >> there but its not enough to ruin the lens. Lots of little
> >> scratches, sometimes called cleaning marks, can really mess
> >> up a lens because it acts almost like ground glass,
> >> diffusing the image.
> >
> > What about a small bit of fog on the rear element of a similar lens?
> >
> > Will it kill contrast and sharpness?
>
> Oh, and I already unscrewed the rear element to wipe the exposed surfaces.
> However the fog (it is slight) is inside the rear element. The lens is a
> Calter-Ilex 215mm. At some point, I'm hoping that a repair shop can
> somehow disassemble the element itself and clean the surface.
Calumet had a couple of lenses of this focal length, one
was a Tessar, the other a Plasmat. If its the Tessar the
trouble is in the cement between the elements of the back
component. It will take recementing to fix it. If its the
Plasmat (six elements in four groups) it could be in the
cement of the cemented component but is more likely to be in
the air space. These lenses probably have retaining rings on
the front like Schneider Symmars. The rings come off with a
friction tool. There may be shims under the front element so
if you take it apart make sure to observe the location of
the shim and get it back. The shims are used to make small
adjustments to the spacing of the elements.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: reynolds@panix.com (Brian Reynolds)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lens Scratch
Date: 29 Jul 2004
Nicholas O. Lindan see@sig.com wrote:
>Telescopes with mirrors (and mirror lenses) all have a big splodge
>in the middle of light path where the secondary mirror is placed. If
>a splodge is good enough for Hubbell ...
Most reflectors have an obstructed optical path, but not all of them.
There are designs that use tilted optics (e.g., Schiefspiegler aka
"sheep sprinkler") to avoid an obstruction. The problem with these is
you go from using spheres and paraboloids to using hyperboloids and
other very odd shapes.
Many years ago an article by Richard Berry showed that for visual use
so long as the obstruction was less than about 18% of the aperture
(absolute, not focal ratio) the contrast of an obstructed reflector
would be indistinguishable from that of a refractor.
Newtonians and Maksutov-Newtonians can get that small with low profile
focusers and careful design. Catadioptrics ("mirror lenses" are
usually Schmidt-Cassegrains or Maksutov-Cassegrains) usually have an
obstruction of about 33% of the aperture.
For astronomical photographic use the size of the central obstruction
usually isn't an issue, vignetting caused by small secondaries is more
of a problem.
>The site: http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/mirrors/ has a discussion
>of a mirror lens that has a splodge in the middle that is 0.44 the
>diameter of the lens (3" lens, 1.32" splodge).
He might have gotten better results from the Tamron if he made sure it
was collimated. CATs are sensitive to collimation. I'm not sure if
the Tamron (or any of the other camera lens CATs) can be user
collimated. The Pro-Optic 500mm f/5.6 Maksutov-Cassegrain that
Adorama sells as a 90mm spotting scope can be collimated.
Even so he got pretty good results from it.
--
Brian Reynolds
From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" see@sig.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lens Scratch
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004
"rgans" rgans@roanld-N-O-gansSPAMphotography.com wrote
As the dentist said:
> OK, perhaps if we drill down a little, I'll understand.
> If I block the center of the lens with a vague circle 1/4" in diameter,
> won't there be a similarly sized (depending on the bellows draw) imageless
> area on the neg?
No.
Your 'scratch' wouldn't happen to be 1/4" wide, would it? I am
imagining your average type scratch. Sort of 1/2 a pin-head wide
and 1/4 - 1/2 inch long.
> If I block the center (where my scratch is) with 1/8": or 1/16" won't
> this.....the idea is, how small must the scratch be for it to not affect the
> image?
A circular/square gouge 1 inch around? That's a guess
but it's in that range. And 'affect the image' is a subjective
judgement. Look close enough and you will see everything, including
all the things that aren't even there.
Draw that picture of a lens forming an image that was in your 5th
grade science course: An arrow, a lens from a magnifying glass, the
upside-down image of the arrow on the film.
If you trace rays from the tip of the arrow to any part of the lens
the ray will end up on the film at the tip of the image of the arrow.
That's what lenses do.
If there is a splodge on the back of the lens it only blocks off some
of those rays. Try it on the drawing: erase the rays going through the
center of the lens. No black hole forms on the film. The remaining
rays still form an image of the tip of the arrow as before by going
'around' the splodge.
The effect of the splodge is to make the image darker as it blocks some
of the rays going to the image. Like an inside out diaphragm.
Now, this is a quite a bit of a simplification. If the lens is _very_
close to the film then there may not be enough room for the rays to
go 'around' the splodge and there will be a dark spot in the image.
And a very large (1/4" or so) splodge will effect the out-of-focus
portion of the picture. In the textbook picture, move the film
closer to the lens, keep the rays the same. You can see now that
the splodge will indeed cause the fuzzy spot that is now the tip
of the arrow to have a doughnut shape.
Telescopes with mirrors (and mirror lenses) all have a big splodge
in the middle of light path where the secondary mirror is placed. If
a splodge is good enough for Hubbell ...
The site:
http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/mirrors/
has a discussion of a mirror lens that has a splodge in the middle that
is 0.44 the diameter of the lens (3" lens, 1.32" splodge).
--
Nicholas O. Lindan
From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: Big old aerial camera lens -14 lbs
Date: 30 Jul 2004
Ol' Bab olbabnospam@rochester.rr.com wrote
> I want $7,673. I suspect I'll let it go for enormously less.
> I think it cost me $50, in 1950 dollars.
>
I bought a 12"/2.5 with a shutter recently on EBAY for about $50, in
2004 dollars. You might as well keep it unless you are worried about
the radiation.
Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Another Big Old Brass lens to try-- Emil Busch Rapid Aplanet No. 5
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004
"Jos. Burke" josburke@bellsouth.net wrote...
> I have acquired another big brass lens: An Emil Busch Rapid Aplanet No.
> 5 Foc. 18 ins. (R.O.J.A. vorm Emil Busch A-G Rathenow). Built in iris with
> f/8 thru 64 settings.
> It came attached to a Thornton Pickard shutter that seems to function
> properly. The Shutter and lens assy was a direct fit onto my Seneca
> 11x14--so I mounted it and focused to get an idea of its coverage. I was
> really surprised as it appears to cover the full 11x14 format even at f/8
> ( to focus at least !) on the GG. It also appears rather sharp with very
> good definition on the GG as well. I am interested in adapting to a packard
> shutter as that Thornton Pickard thingy is vibration infested-I wonder how
> users ever got a sharp image with that roller blind "clunking" contraption.
> Any insight on this lens--sharp--yes/no!! Original uses??
> Richard K.??????
> Thanks J Burke
The Rapid Aplanat is a Rapid-Rectilinear. These were sold
under many different names. R-R's are capable of very good
performance but are not anastigmat lenses. The astigmatism
is compensated by introducing some field curvature to
average the curvature of the radial and tangential fields
around the focal surface. The effect is minimised by
stopping down, while the aperture has no effect on the
astigmatism itself it does increase depth of field so the
aberration has less effect. Because these are symmetrical
lenses they have little lateral color, distortion, or coma.
Other aberrations depend on the exact design but Busch was a
quality lens maker so its likely a good example of the type.
Thornton-Pickard was an English company who made high
quality view cameras and had a patent on a type of roller
blind shutter. They made both focal plane shutter adaptors
for their view cameas and front or rear of the lens shutters
using the same slit curtain principle. Unlike a curtain type
focal plane shutter the roller blind shutter on a lens
exposes the entire film at once, or at least in broad
segments if the slit is narrow. Its possible to use a
Packard shutter but the Thornton-Pickard, if its working,
gives you a choice of shutter speeds where the Packard does
not.
The Rapid-Rectininear was invented simultaneously and
independantly by H.A.Steinheil and J.H.Dalmeyer in 1866.
Steinheil called his lens the Aplanat, Dallmeyer the Rapid
Rectilinear. These lenses became immensly successful and
became one of the most widely used lenses in photography,
being replaced by other types only after the development of
"Jena" glass around 1890. Jena glass allowed the
construction of lenses which were simultaneously corrected
for color and astigmatism. The Rapid Rectilinear type
continued to be made until the early 1930's for use in lower
cost folding cameras. Bausch & Lomb built millions of them
for Eastman Kodak, mostly calibrated in U.S. stops.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004
From: "Vladamir30" teemax@film.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What is available for WA for 8x10
Somebody wrote:
> >> > In my infinite quest for infinite ways to spend money on a hobby,
> >> > I now need to know what is available for WA for a 8x10 format
> >> > camera.
Would you be happy spending money but not a whole lot of money? If so, you
might consider the Wollensak 159mm WA Series IIIA F9.5 lens (there's also an
F12 version that others say works well but F12 is a very small maximum
aperture for a wide angle lens and I'd be a little concerned about viewing
the image on the ground glass). It's a very nice small, light, and
inexpensive (about $200-$300 on e bay) wide angle lens for 8x10. It's the
approximate eqivalent of an 80mm lens for 4x5 and of a 24mm lens for 35mm .
This lens shows up on e bay quite often. I've had two, one is a Raptar which
means it's single coated, the other was a Velostigmat which means it's
uncoated. I don't know about "lots of coverage" but I've never run out of
coverage with mine and I do some architectural work.
Another somewhat narrower but still moderate wide angle lens for 8x10 that's
also small, light, and relatively inexpensive is the 210mm G Claron. This is
an F9 lens and it's single coated. Schneider discontinued the G Claron line
a few years ago but the 210 is plentiful on e bay in the $300 range as I
recall. It's the equivalent of a 105mm lens for 4x5 and the approximate
equivalent of a 35mm lens in 35mm. They usually come in Copal shutters and
are generally newer than the Wollensak. The specs would indicate that this
lens won't cover 8x10 but it does and then some when stopped down to F16 and
the coverage continues to increase as you stop down further. I used mine for
architecture and don't recall running out of coverage.
Most wide angle lenses for 8x10 are big, heavy, and expensive. These are two
that aren't.
From: thomandpam@yahoo.com.au (Thom)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What is available for WA for 8x10
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004
"sympatico.ca" sympatico@sympatico.ca wrote:
>"AArDvarK" noway@yourprob.com wrote
>>
>> > In my infinite quest for infinite ways to spend money on a hobby,
>> > I now need to know what is available for WA for a 8x10 format
>> > camera. I am a WA user (24mm or less) in the 35 mm world. I am
>> > now foraging into the 8x10 realm. Any suggestions for a lens
>> > with lots of coverage?
>>
>> A simple base approach, simplisticly, normal lens on a
>> 35mm camera = 50mm, for an 8x10 it's 300mm.
I'm sorry but its not 50mm, its 43mm in fact its 38mm if you just
enlarge the 24x30mm part of the 24x36mm frame.
You can't compare oranges and apples and compare an image with a
1:1.25 ratyion and a 1:1.5 ration. If you enlarge to an 8x10 or 4x5
(the 24x30 part of the neg) than the following applies. The first
figure is the 8x10 FL and the second is the equivilant 35mm
150 = 18.9mm
165 = 20.7mm
180 = 22.6mm
210 = 26.4mm
240 = 30.2mm
250 = 31.5mm
THOM
>>
>> 1/2 of 50mm = 25mm, 24mm actual for your wide angle,
>> 1/2 of 300mm = a 150mm on 8x10. and simply so forth.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>depending on how you measure/compare it (image diagonal/different
>proportions and so on) 24mm in 35mm equates to around 173mm to 194mm in
>8x10.
>
>(useful excel tool here http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/lenses3.html - you can
>download it )
>
>There is also the feeling that many have (purely illusiory) that they don't
>need to use a lens as wide with 8x10 as they do with smaller fomats.
>
>24mm is a much used lens by me in 35mm. In 8x10 my 210mm or 250mm often seem
>plenty wide enough. my 159mm/165mm lenses seem REALLY wide.....
From: john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Figuring out coverage for non square formats?
Date: Sun, 23 May 2004
Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu wrote:
> Thanks for the information, but for some of us it is easier to do the
> calculations than to order the brochure and then find it when needed.
> All I need to know is the size of the image circle. [...]
Leonard, there is another factor to consider. I don't know exactly how the
manufacturers determine the edge of circle of coverage. It really is up to
them to cite, unless there is some ASA standard implied.
Some lenses have a mechanical cut-off point, some just fade away in a
graduated (log?) scale. True?
Perhaps Bob S can help us in regards to _true_ metrics for determining the
'edge' of the circle of coverage.
Two extreme examples: Biogons tend to drop off catastrophically near the
edge and haven't much coverge beyond the intended format but light-falloff
is very slight up to the intended format. My 47mm F5.6 Super-Angulon
(early) has a mechanical cut-off that is far beyond the intended 58mm x
96mm, albeit with profound fall-off.
And again, to make a simple picture of Nominal Circle of Coverage and
horizontal film format of the same dimension:
http://course1.winona.edu/jstafford/coverage/ (is that correct?)
From: john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Figuring out coverage for non square formats?
Date: Sun, 23 May 2004
Does this help?
http://course1.winona.edu/jstafford/coverage/
From: john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Empirical method to measure cell spacing?
Date: Sun, 23 May 2004
danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm) wrote:
> john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs) wrote
> > Have you ever worked with the Pacific Optical 3" F4.5?
>
> Never. I've seen 'em, also Zeiss-badged 75/4.5s, and marvelled, though.
Same thing. Well here's one of the four I am using for a new camera:
http://course1.winona.edu/jstafford/newlens1
(That is definitely not the final version. The final will not have a
conventional bellows or frame. It's not going well without a machinist and
I sure can't afford SK Grimes, Inc. :))
[Ed. note: lens long sold before you read this, but info archived here for reference...]
From: BobE besk@shtc.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.large-format
Subject: FS: 47/5.6 Super Angulon
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004
For sale is a 47/5.6 Super Angulon lens (NOT the XL model.) Shutter
is Copal 0. As far as I can tell everything is mint.
Includes front and rear caps but no box etc. Multicoated, 49mm
filter size. This lens has a image circle of 123mm at F22 and infinity
focus according to Schneider's published figures. That means it will
just cover 6X12 but not 4X5.
Was purchased used a few years ago for a project but never got
around to using it.
I will throw in a 49 to 52mm filter adapter if desired.
$525.00 plus shipping.
Thanks!
Bob Eskridge
From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Goerz Dagors
Date: 15 Apr 2004
"Neil Purling" sextant@sextant.karoo.co.uk wrote
> I have this lens: Doppel Anastigmat 130cm f6.8, taken from a 9x12cm Tenax.
> The lens has no s/n, but the dial set Compur shutter does. ('C.P. GOERZ' on
> the shutter dial).
> I have experienced the phenomenon of focus shift and was wondering if the
> effect is far greater or lesser as you increase the focal length of the lens?
> The nature of the shift is that if one focused at full open on infinity the
> point of focus seems to shift closer stopped down. Min aperture is f32 and
> typically I use f22.
>
> At least with mine the edges exhibit a fair loss of definition when I
> examine the negs under a lens.
> Is this typical on a Dagor which could be early 1920s or id the lens simply
> inadequate to cobver 4x5?
Focus shift is caused by spherical aberration. If you increase focal
length by simply scaling the lens design, which is common in large
format optics, then the focus shift will increase in direct proportion
to the increase of focal length. Of course, if you get a longer focal
length lens with a completely different design, then all bets are off.
Dagors suffer from considerably more zonal spherical aberration than
modern Plasmats of equal focal length, and therefore will show much
more focus shift.
I'm a little confused by your description of the focus shift in your
lens. Virtually all large format optics have a characteristic on-axis
aberration curve which requires moving the lens slightly further from
the film plane to achieve the best infinity focus when you stop down.
If you're using an off-axis point to determine best focus then things
might be different.
Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Graflex lens question on coverage
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004
"EMonnie" emonnie@aol.com wrote...
> Will a Graflex f 4.7 135mm lens fit and operate on a 2 x 3 Speed Graphic
> without major problems? This was normal lens for 4 x 5.
The 135mm, f/4.7 Optar was a standard lens for the 4x5
Speed and Crown Graphic. "Normal" focal length for this size
is 150mm but press cameras were generally equipped with
somewhat wide angle lenses. 135mm or 127mm were the common
focal lengths. At 4x5 both focal lengths are working right
at their limits, they are really for 3-14 X 4-1/4 cameras.
"Normal" for a 2x3 is 100mm, so a 135mm will cover and be
somewhat long focus, its about like using a 200mm lens on a
4x5.
Now the bad news. If this is a Wollensak lens (you can
tell from the shutter) its not a very good lens. Wollensak
Raptar lenses, which were sold by Graflex as Optars, are
quite sharp in the center of the image but have excessive
coma so must be stopped down to around f/22 to get any sort
of sharpness in the corners. This appears to be a design
problem not a manufacturing quality control problem. Later
Graflex Optar lenses were made by Rodenstock and have "Made
in Germany" on them. They are also in either Compur or
Graflex 1000 shutters. These are essentially the same as the
Rodenstock Yser, which is a very good lens of the Tessar
type.
FWIW, Kodak's Ektar lenses of this period are excellent
and a much better choice, if you have one, over the
Wollensak lenses. Note that Wollensak did make some
excellent lenses, for instance, the Tele-Optar and
Tele-Raptar lenses are very good.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 150mm recommendation for 5x7?
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004
----- Original Message -----
From: "Photo & Music" xxx@yyy.zzz
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: 150mm recommendation for 5x7?
> Thanks, Kerry. Look at the deal this guy just got on eBay. The lens you
> recommended PLUS a Toyo camera body, all for $700 !!!
>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category;=15247&item;=3807939443
&rd;=1&ssPageName;=WDVW
>
Nope, wrong lens. The lens pictured with the camera in that auction listing
is a 150mm APO-Sironar-N. Back in the early to mid 1990s, Rodenstock made
three series of standard lenses: the APO-Sironar-N (72 degree coverage,
least expensive), APO-Sironar-S (75 degree coverage, mid-range price,
outstanding performance) and APO-Sironar-W (80 degree coverage, most
expensive). They discontined the APO-Sironar-W line (only three lenses,
150mm, 210mm and 300mm) in the late 1990s due to slow sales.
On a side note, the APO-Sironar-W line was originally called just plain APO
Sironar (from about 1987 - 1992) and what is now the APO-Sironar-N was just
called Sironar-N. When the APO-Sironar-S (red stripe) line was introduced,
the name of the Sironar-N was "upgraded" to APO-Sironar-N (with silver
stripe) and the APO Sironar got the -W suffix (and a nifty bright yellow
racing stripe) to distinguish it from the other two lines sharing the
APO-Sironar name. The easist way to tell if you have the geniune 80 degree
lens (whether it's called APO Sironar or APO-Sironar-W) is by the filter
size - 72mm. If it takes smaller filters (49mm), it's not the 80 degree
lens you would want for 5x7.
FWIW, the lens in that auction is readily available for $500 (for the Caltar
II-N - same lens) or $550 new from Calumet. It typically sells for about
$350 used. Considering the buyer also got a camera in the deal, he didn't
do too bad, but nowhere near the steal you envisioned.
Kerry
P.S. For a little more info on the 150mm Super Symmar HM, see:
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm
Kerry
From: p2macgahan@compuserve.com (P. MacGahan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Goerz Dagors
Date: 17 Apr 2004
"Neil Purling" sextant@sextant.karoo.co.uk wrote
> The lens is being used on a 4x5 Crown Graphic.
> it is mounted in a dial-set Compur shutter and as I said in my original post
> the shutter dial is engraved 'C.P. GOERZ'.
> I have unscrewed the lens elements to blow out dust and I will have another
> look at how tight they are now.
>
> I examine my negatives under an old 50mm lens which magnifies an awful lot
> more than my loupe I use for focusing. I will have to wait till I get to
> college to find out just how much is visible in a print.
>
> I am also mindful that this lens is eighty years old and I dont expect a
> perfect definition corner to corner or edge to edge. I only paid a very
> small sum for it.
If you unscrewed the elements before using it, and tightened them
afterwards, checking that they are tight is a good point. Still, the
spacing of the elements is important. It may be that it is part of a
problem. Experimenting with slightly changing the tightness might be
a good thing to try, but be cautious, the threads in the shutter are
not meant to deal with extreme tightness.
Normally, Dagors are very good lenses. Coverage and illumination beyond
about 80 degrees can vary a little, but the field for 4x5" with
a 130mm lens is close to 60 degrees. At f:22 you should expect good
performance. My approach to dealing with focus shift is to
focus approximately, wide open. Then, I focus again around f:11 or
f:16. After that, a fine correction at f:22 or f:32 is very
small, if any.
A point to check is the lens serial number. Goerz normally put the
serial number on both elements. If they agree, either there is some
damage you've missed or it should be possible to adjust it for a good
image.
If the serial no. is missing on the rear element (or both elements), it
leaves open a possibility that something tricky has happened. If you
received it from the original owner, you may be able to learn more by
asking.
Using an old 50mm lens as a loupe can have drawbacks. In particular,
it may be hard to see under the focussing hood of a Graflex. The problem
is a mechanical one; it may be hard to position the lens because
of how it is made. You'll have to judge that. There are very small
convenient and very inexpensive jeweler's loupes (e.g., from microtools).
They are not wonderful optically, but they easily see into the corners of
Linhof viewing hoods (and I think Graflexes, as well). Some others on
this list can help you find much higher performance ones if that is a
problem.
From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: repairing dented lens flange
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004
"Tom Nelson" ludibund@xintegraonline.com.invalid wrote
> My 150mm Rodenstock Sironar-N fell off the camera and the rear lens
> flange is dented. Does anyone know of a source for such a part? My
> camera repair shop wasn't helpful.
There is a special tool for straightening dented lens flanges. I'm
surprised the repair shop doesn't have one. Try a store that trades in
used gear - they have a definite need for the tool.
It is also possible to gently pound the dent out with a half-circle cradle
cut in a block of wood and a similarly radiused end of an 8" length of 1x2.
Place the lens rim in the cradle and the 1x2 inside the rim and pound gently
on the stick. I have not tried this method, use at your own risk.
OTOH, pounding metal to shape against a buck is good enough for Muliner
Park Ward and Aston Martin - it should be good enough for a Sironar.
You may want to use hardwood for the 1x2 (or whatever size lurks in
the wood scrap box).
--
Nicholas O. Lindan
From: jimkphoto@aol.com (James E Kropp)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 21 Apr 2004
Subject: Re: Nikkor APO 420 f/9 ??
I have this lens in barrel format and it is FANTASTIC!!!!
I use it with a packard shutter and it is Super sharp and covers 8x10 with
movements.
Im very happy with mine!!!
Only drawback is, it cant be used on a 4x4 lenboard because of its size.
Jim Kropp
www.Jimkphoto.com
From: p2macgahan@compuserve.com (P. MacGahan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 150mm recommendation for 5x7?
Date: 20 Apr 2004
"Photo & Music" xxx@yyy.zzz wrote
> I'd like a recommendation for a 150mm lens (as a gentle wide angle) for my
> 5x7 Wisner camera - other than the obvious Schneider 150mm XL - at $1,800
> it's a bit steep for me.
>
> I'd like an image circle of _at least_ 300mm so I can use some movements.
> Most of the other lenses I've looked at from Fuji, Nikon, Rodenstock, etc
> have image circles only slightly larger than 210mm, the minimum for 5x7.
>
> TIA-
There are some older lenses that would not be as sharp, contrasty and flare-
free as a Super Symmar XL, but are often available at very reasonable
prices. The 6" Dagor and the 165mm Angulon can be pretty good lenses.
A 155 mm Grandagon is a good lens and will easily cover 300mm, but it is
enormous. The Nikon 150SW should be a good lens (well, the 75 and
the 120 are!). It's not so big as the Grandagon, more like the SS.
From: Bob Salomon bob_salomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 150mm recommendation for 5x7?
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004
p2macgahan@compuserve.com (P. MacGahan) wrote:
> only slightly larger than 210mm
The Apo Sironar S is more then slightly larger. It covers 231mm comapred
to the Apo Sironar N that covers 214mm. You could also probably find the
Apo Sironar or Apo Sironar W used. That covered 252mm.
At 231mm the S gives 17mm of rise and 13mm of shift in landscape format.
The W gave 33 and 26mm although at the cost of more weight and size.
As a comparison the 155mm Grandagon gave 111mm of rise and 96mm of shift
at even greater weight and size and would probably also need a center
filter.
Exactly how much movement does your camera have? And remember the larger
the coverage with modern lenses the larger and heavier the lens becomes.
--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
From: Jean-David Beyer jdbeyer@exit109.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What is available for WA for 8x10
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004
Kirk Fry wrote:
> More: Widest lens ever made to cover 8X10. My entry:
> Goerz
> Hypergon No. Focal MM Format inches 1914 Price
> 0 60 5x7 $43.50
> 000a 75 8 x 10 $49.00
> 0 90 10 x 12 $52.50
> 0 120 12 x 16 $62.00
> 1 150 16 x 20 $72.50
> 2a 200 24 x 28 $91.00
> 000a w/o Star 75 5 x 7 $44.00
> 00 w/o Star 90 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 $47.50
> 0 w/o Star 120 8 x 10 $54.50
>
>
> A 75 mm 000a Goerz Hypergon with Star fan. Don't you wish your Great
> Grandfather had bought a dozen and put them in a lock box for you.
> How about that 2a? They boasted an 1:31 f-stop.
> Kirk
If you want a new one, Ron Wisner is making them.
The 140o Wisner Hypergon, 84mm, f:22-45
Lens in Shutter $2495.00
Center Filter $382.00
http://www.wisner.com/Page20.html
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer
From: bobjames27@aol.com (Bob G)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 26 Apr 2004
Subject: Re: What is available for WA for 8x10
>what is available for WA for a 8x10 format
159mm WA Wollensak (?) (old, flare?)
165mm Angulon (stop it down!)
165mm Super Angulon (big, heavy, expensive)
210mm G-Claron (a small wonder, shoot at f32 or smaller)
210mm Angulon (usually in old shutter, Copal 3 remounts expensive)
210mm Super Angulon (monstruous, forget it)
8 1/4" Dagor (watch out for focus shift, many variations in quality)
210m Fujinon-W (a beauty)
240mm Fujinon-A (a miniature lens, will just cover)
240mm G-Claron (small, stop it down!)
240mm Symmar, Symmar-S, Apo-Symmar, Sironar, Sironar-N, Apo-Sironar, Nikkor-W
(big, heavy, just cover)
250mm Wide Field Ektar (sharp, but in unreliable shutter)
250mm f6.7 Fujinon-W (superb, extensive coverage, make sure it's f6.7!)
There are some available below 165mm, they'll cost you an arm and a leg
Just a short list with my biased opinions!
Bob G
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: lens recoating by your local optician?
>...
> Should I assume that the new cements aren't meltable ?
>As I recall the method of separating lens elements with
>Balsam cement is to heat them in hot water. I think the only
>problem incurred using that process occurred if the cement
>was very old and crystallized.
>
>Regards,
>
> John S. Douglas Photographer
> http://www.photographers-darkroom.com
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: sai chan sai.chan@3web.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: battery independent MF camera?
From: jcpere@aol.com (JCPERE)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: battery independent MF camera?
> "John Stafford" john@stafford.net
>
>John Stewart:
>> I was just bemoaning the fact that Century Graphics like mine with good
>> lenses, backs with several formats and groundglass/rangefinder focus are
>> selling cheap on eBay.
>
>I remember the post. Just what is so fastinating about those cameras? To me
>they occupy a very odd niche. The rollfilm backs for them are not good
>compared to others, the camera is darned kludgy to handle, and the optics
>aren't impressive. Hummmm.... all the virtues that didn't concern me when I
>was a press photographer. :)
>
From: "Richard Davis" drdagor@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Drilling metal lensboards
> I have a few blank metal lensboards for my Calumet 400 series 4x5 and
> need to drill a couple for some lenses I've bought, one a 100mm
> Wide-field Ektar in a Flash Supermatic shutter that fits a Copal 0 hole,
> and the other a 90mm Raptar in a very small Rapax shutter (Copal 00?).
> I'm not the handiest person in the world with tools, but I can drill a
> hole, I just wanted some input on drilling these kind of lensboards. Is
> this a home project, or should I try to find someone to do it for me?
> If so, can anyone recommend someone in the Seattle area?
>
> Thanks,
> Benno Jones
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Ilex Acuton lens?
>Hi all,
>
>Forgive me for not taking the time to search the NG better or look at your
>FAQ but I'm sort of rushed as this lens will only be available to me for the
>next day or two at a local store.
>
>It's a 215mm f4.8 Ilex Acuton lens that I want to use for a Calumet 4 x 5.
>
>Has anyone heard of the lens? Had experiences with it good or bad? I intend
>on using it primarily for Black and white although I may do *some* color in
>the future.
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001
From: "Peter De Smidt" pdesmidt@fdldotnet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Drilling metal lensboards
> Benno Jones
> ganesh_bj@nospam.hotmail.com writes:
>
> >I have a few blank metal lensboards for my Calumet 400 series 4x5 and
> >need to drill a couple for some lenses I've bought, one a 100mm
> >Wide-field Ektar in a Flash Supermatic shutter that fits a Copal 0 hole,
> >and the other a 90mm Raptar in a very small Rapax shutter (Copal 00?).
> >I'm not the handiest person in the world with tools, but I can drill a
> >hole, I just wanted some input on drilling these kind of lensboards. Is
> >this a home project, or should I try to find someone to do it for me?
> >If so, can anyone recommend someone in the Seattle area?
> >
>
> You might try posting to the rec.crafts.metalworking newsgroup. Perhaps a home
> shop machinist in the area will respond. Probably charge less than a full sized
> shop's minimum.
> David Lindquist
> Davidlindq@aol.com
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Drilling metal lensboards
>Hi Benno,
>
>The easiest and most accurate way is to clamp the lensboard onto the chuck
>of a metal lathe and cut it there. Unfortunately, these are not common
>household items; but any local machine shop could do this operation for you.
>
>Alternatively, if you have a band saw, and the blanks are thin enough, you
>can drill a center hole in two blanks on the drill press, then cut in from
>one side to the center with a metal cutting blade on the band saw, shape the
>circle with interior cuts, then reverse one of the blanks to the other, so
>each of the cuts backs onto metal and weld or screw the blanks together.
>
>I have used the devices recommended by Pam and the cutters are not intended
>to deal with steel or thick aluminum. They will work - with stops for
>sharpening, but I would rather find another way.
>
>I was not the handiest person either at one time, but it is fun. One of the
>things you will find is that each tool you buy for one project, you will use
>again and again for other projects.
>
>Francis A. Miniter
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: andermar@teleport.com (Mark Anderson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Drilling metal lensboards
> Is
> this a home project, or should I try to find someone to do it for me?
> If so, can anyone recommend someone in the Seattle area?
Mark Anderson
DBA Riparia www.teleport.com/~andermar/
From: rwatson767@aol.com (RWatson767)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Drilling metal lensboards
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001
From: Frank Earl fbearl@home.com
To: camera-fix@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Lens boards
From: "Brian Ellis"
bellis60@earthlink.net
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 65 mm Grandagon on a
Tachihara?
From: "The Fixer Man" kenburns@twave.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 65 mm Grandagon on a Tachihara?
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Light, quality, wide-angle w/ adequate circle
> "Kerry L. Thalmann"
> largeformat@thalmann.com said this on the Internet:
>
> rest snipped
>
> >
> >Personally, for backpacking, I use a little 90mm WA Congo. This is a
WA
> >Gauss design like the WF Ektar, but multicoated in a modern Copal
> >shutter. It's in the same size and weight range as the 90mm Angulon,
> >but also suffers from limited coverage (175mm image circle). Still,
> >it's so tiny and lightweight, I've learned to live with it's limited
> >coverage when backpacking.
> >
> >You can read more about this, and other lightweight 4x5 wide angle
> >options at:
> >
> >http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/wide.htm
> >
> The discontinued Rodenstock 90mm f8 Geronar is another option. It's shares the
> same kind of design like the 90mm Congo that Kerry mentions.
>
> Unlike a 100mm Ektar WF, it's modern enough to be multicoated.
--
Kerry L. Thalmann
Large Format Images of Nature
http://www.thalmann.com/
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Light, quality, wide-angle w/ adequate circle
> Thanks for following up Kerry. I have used this lens before and found it much
> lighter than my Fujinon 90mm f8.
>
> Well, you're the man with the tests. ;-)
>
> The Congos are unfortunately a little overpriced these days if you ask me. With
> the uncertain QC, it makes them that much harder to buy. Which is why I still
> think the Geronar 90 is a worthwhile consideration.
--
Kerry L. Thalmann
Large Format Images of Nature
http://www.thalmann.com/
From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Light, quality, wide-angle w/ adequate circle
> Badger no
> longer imports the Congos - probably due to the variable quality.
> Badger is a reputable dealer who stands behind what they sell, and when
> the goods arriving from the manufacturer are of suspect quality, I'm
> sure it makes their life difficult.
--
Kerry L. Thalmann
Large Format Images of Nature
http://www.thalmann.com/
From: Jean-David Beyer jdbeyer@exit109.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: convertible large format lens query
> I've got an Ilex 215mm acutar lens, from what I've read on this NG, a
> convertible lens allows you to remove the front element and use back
> element as a wide angle. I've checked the specs on this particular
> lens and it doesn't list it as a convertible but I'm able to remove
> the front element and the degree of coverage does change. Are most LF
> lenses convertible? I have the 215mm acutar 8 1/2, also a schneider
> angulon 90 f6.8 that i can do the same with and it also is not listed
> as a convertible lens in the catalogues, does anyone have experience
> and can give me some information? I would appear that most LF lenses
> have a front and rear sandwich around the shutters and we could use
> one or the other, but how about image degradation from using just one
> element?
Jean-David Beyer
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: convertible large format lens query
>I've got an Ilex 215mm acutar lens, from what I've read on this NG, a
>convertible lens allows you to remove the front element and use back
>element as a wide angle. I've checked the specs on this particular
>lens and it doesn't list it as a convertible but I'm able to remove
>the front element and the degree of coverage does change. Are most LF
>lenses convertible? I have the 215mm acutar 8 1/2, also a schneider
>angulon 90 f6.8 that i can do the same with and it also is not listed
>as a convertible lens in the catalogues, does anyone have experience
>and can give me some information? I would appear that most LF lenses
>have a front and rear sandwich around the shutters and we could use
>one or the other, but how about image degradation from using just one
>element?
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Michael Briggs MichaelBriggs@EarthLink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 203 7.7 Ektar and 8" and 3 questions.
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002
Joe Lacy wrote:
> Third question: Let's take a real situation. The light reading says f11
> @60th. On an 8" bellows extended out to 8" should I make any corrections and
> typically how much for 8"?
With a 203 mm lens (=7.99 in), with distance from the film to the
optical center of the lens (for most lenses, the location of the f-stop
aperture) being 8 inches, you are focused on infinity. No correction
no necessary.
If you have an 203 mm focal length lens and a maximum bellows extension
of 8 inches, you are only going to be able to focus on distant objects.
If 8 inches is the size of your bellows, you might want a shorter focal
length lens instead.
There is an easy rule of thumb to know whether a correction is needed:
if the subject that you are focused on is within 10 times the focal
length of the lens, they you need to calculated the exposure
correction. You can find the equation on various places on the web
(you probably wouldn't like the version I use because it uses logs).
--Michael
Kowa process lens, f 9, 150 mm
Industrial Photographic Equip. Co., 193 Junipero Street, Ventura, CA 93001-2700.