Very Wide Angle and Ultrawide Angle Lens Options in Medium Format
by Robert Monaghan


Photo thanks to Timothy Francisco
Plaubel Veriwide 100 Camera - Front View
Related Local Links:
Veriwide 100 (6x10cm 100 degrees)
Hasselblad Superwide
Large Format Lenses (many wide angle postings)
Vistashift 612 Panoramic Ultrawide Camera with Shifts
Homebrew Wide Angle Cameras [7/2001]
Galvin 6x9cm with 47mm Super Angulon Homebrew [3/2002]

Q. What are some of the very wide and ultrawide options on medium format?

While not meant to be all-inclusive, the following list gives you a good idea of the typical offerings available in very wide, ultrawide, and fisheye optics in common medium format systems:





We will look at some of these lenses and related very wide and ultrawide angle options below. Prices from the Tamron/Bronica site for a general idea of the non-budget nature of many of these optics! Notice also how the price jumps from say 40mm rectilinear lens on 6x6cm ($2,639 Bronica SQA) to 35mm fisheye ($4,311 Bronica SQA). As with 35mm SLRs, slightly wider ultrawide angle lenses can cost nearly double the previous wide angle optic cost!

For a price comparison on 35mm very wide and ultrawide angle lenses, see our Nikon wide and fisheye price guide pages

Q. What about very wide angle medium format photography on a budget?

If you are a very wide angle fan(atic) on an under $1,000 US budget, you have relatively few choices on most medium format systems.

In rangefinder cameras for example, the very sharp 58/60mm wide angle for the 6x7cm rangefinder Koni/Rapid Omegas is modest cost ($150-200+), but only covers 75 degrees (diagonally) or 62 degrees horizontally (cf. 28+mm on 35mm SLR). The Mamiya Press 50mm f/6.3 wide angle ($500 up) covers up to 6x9cm, yielding 90 degrees (diagonally) or 78 degrees (horizontally). The resulting images are slightly wider than a 24mm lens on a 35mm SLR.

The Graflex XLSW features a fixed 47mm f/8 Super Angulon (by Schneider) with interchangeable Graflok backs (to 6x9cm). Its 82 degrees of horizontal coverage is similar to a 20+mm on 35mm SLR. This metal body camera has no movements and lacks the rangefinder of the Graflex XL, but does take the range of interchangeable Grafloc backs - a major plus. You might find a Graflex XLSW for circa $900 US with some searching.

The Plaubel and Brooks Veriwide 100 camera also features the 47mm Super Angulon (in f/8 and f/5.6 variants). The Plaubel veriwide is a 6x10cm camera model. The coverage of this camera is a rather ultrawide 100 degrees diagonally, or 88+ degrees horizontally, similar to an 18mm ultrawide lens on a 35mm SLR. The Brooks veriwide variant is a bit less wide (as it is 6x9cm), but you can use interchangeable Grafloc backs with it (including ground glass, polaroid, and rollfilm backs). At $600+ on EBAY, a veriwide is one of the cheapest ultrawide medium format cameras available.

One solution is to build a very wide camera around the optics. The Hasselblad Superwide uses a 38mm Zeiss biogon lens fixed to the camera body ($1500+ without back) to provide circa 92 degrees (diagonally) or 72 degrees (horizontally). You can use a ground glass back with the Superwide to compose and focus precisely, unlike the somewhat distorted bubble finders usually found on most such viewfinder cameras. [n.b. Check polaroid backs for compatibility issues with some models.]

Among SLR lines, most 6x6cm lines feature rectilinear lenses down to 40mm (e.g., Hasselblad, Bronica..), after which a 30mm fisheye lens may be available. You might be able to find the highly regarded 40mm Nikkor for classic Bronica S2/EC 6x6cm cameras for $300-400 US (cf. Norita 40mm for rather more $), or the 45mm SuperKomura in the same mount ($250 US up).

The Pentax 67 and Mamiya 645 lines have both ultrawide angle rectilinear and fisheye lenses available too, but still at rather non-budget prices. Their very wide angle lenses are bargains relative to many others in medium format, partly due to the lack of a costly leaf shutter in the lens. The leaf shutter 645 and 6x7cm lenses tend to cost more, and may not yet be available in ultrawide ranges for all models (e.g., new Contax 645 AF). [see notes above in listings..]

Among 6x6cm SLR rectilinear lenses, only the ultrasharp and rectilinear Kowa 35mm is wider than the Hasselblad Superwide's 38mm Zeiss Biogon design. Unfortunately, this unique lens is almost as rare and unique as its 19mm Kowa fisheye cohort - the widest lens in medium format (6x6cm).

The currently available Kiev 30mm fisheye lens is a raving bargain at $200-250 US, as are some of the standard 45mm up wide angle and their three (3!) shift wide angle lenses compared to Japanese or European competitors. Lots of saavy buyers get a Kiev 60 or Kiev 88 SLR just to use the 30mm or shift lenses available at such bargain prices. See discussions on Kiev cameras and optics at above links.

You probably could put together a 4x5" press or view camera with very wide angle optics (65mm super angulon) and rollfilm back options (6x7cm, 6x9cm) within our $1,000 US budget range with some effort and luck. Beware that many cameras (Horseman, Linhof) have issues with mounting wide angle lenses, starting with the need for special bellows and recessed lens mounts. Even some pricey lenses like the 35mm Grandagon are really meant for rollfilm ultrawides, since they don't cover 4x5". Other older optics may barely cover 4x5" but offer no movements. Many folks make their own homebrew cameras using such wide angle view camera lenses in leaf shutters (see also homebrew panoramics below).

In short, the wider angle optics are rarely within the $1,000 budget range, with the Kiev 30mm and related lenses and the older Bronica 40mm Nikkor as major budget exceptions among SLR lines. Ultrawide medium format options are very limited, and only a few cameras offer this option in the under $1,000 US budget range.

Q. What about the Graflex XLSW cameras?

The Graflex XLSW is a fixed lens very wide angle camera featuring the 47mm f/8 Super Angulon lens in a leaf shutter, with an optional accessory viewfinder rather than rangefinder design. You can also use ground glass back or simply guesstimate the focus, thanks to the great depth of field. Thanks to the graflok backs, you can change film formats (6x6cm, 6x7cm, 6x9cm, even polaroid and ground glass backs are available). Unfortunately, many of the older backs reportedly have film flatness problems, so test carefully before buying. These very wide cameras are often priced just below our $1,000 US budget buy limit.

Q. How about using a mini-view camera 6x9cm model such as Horseman or Linhof with ultrawide angle lenses for 4x5"?

Quoting a posting by noted LF/MF lens tester Kerry Thalmann (http://www.thalmann.com/) who observes:

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 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.

So be sure your selected ultrawide angle lens will fit and operate on your mini-view 6x9cm or 4x5" camera. Check on the degree of movements available (if any). Be sure to factor in the cost of a rollfilm back. Unless you are using a panoramic back, you may find that you aren't able to get the full use of the coverage you have paid for in a pricey ultrawide view camera lens. On the other hand, if you do get that coverage, you are often forced to deal with center filters and other expensive accessories such as 6x12cm or 6x17cm rollfilm backs. You can't win! ;-)

Q. What about ultrawide medium format photography on a budget?

Getting below the equivalent of 20mm on a 35mm SLR in medium format is expensive, since pricey view camera lenses and custom built cameras are needed. Several older models using 47mm super angulon lenses provide 18mm equivalent coverage (on 35mm SLR) in the Graflex XLSW and Veriwide cameras.


Kowa 19mm f4.5 MF Fisheye Lens
Photo Courtesy of Dave Mewhinney captvdeo@starnetinc.com
[These photos are believed to be W.J. Markerink's Kowa 19mm fisheye lens..]

The other options are fisheyes such as the Kiev 30mm ($200+) or the pricey Zeiss 30mm for Hasselblad or Rollei SLRs ($3,000+). An extremely rare Kowa 19mm fisheye lens (see photo above) is the widest lens ever made for medium format 6x6cm cameras.

The Kowa 35mm is even wider than the Zeiss 38mm biogon (on 6x6 Hasselblad Superwide). I believe this lens is the widest rectilinear (retrofocus) lens ever made specifically for (6x6cm) medium format.

The 35mm APO Grandagon ($1,200 US) will cover 6x9cm on a rollfilm back, but not 4x5" (even without movements). The view camera lenses in the 43mm, 47mm, 53mm, and 65mm range (e.g., Schneider Super Angulons) are not often found at budget prices either. ;-)

Q. What about 6x6cm versus familiar 35mm SLR values? 6x9cm? 6x4.5cm? 6x7cm?

See FOV Calculator to derive the following comparisons. The medium format focal length (e.g., 40mm) is converted into horizontal or diagonal degrees of coverage (shown). This value of horiz. or diag. degrees is converted to the nearest 35mm format (24x36mm) equivalent lens as shown. 

 
for 6x4.5cm
focal length horiz.deg.      horiz. equiv. on 35mm 
35mm         77              22+mm
40mm         70              25+mm
45mm         64              28+mm
50mm         59              32mm

focal length diagonal deg.   diag. equiv. on 35mm
35mm         90              21+mm
40mm         82              25mm
45mm         76              27+mm
50mm         70              31mm

For 6x6cm:
focal length horiz. deg.  horiz. equiv. on 35mm
35mm         77              22+mm
40mm         70              26mm 
45mm         64              29mm 
50mm         59              32mm 

focal length diag. deg.   diag. equiv. on 35mm 
35mm         97              19mm 
40mm         89              22mm 
45mm         83              24+mm 
50mm         77              27+mm 

for 6x7cm:
focal length horiz.deg.   horiz. equiv on 35mm
45mm         76              23mm
50mm         70              25+mm
55mm         65              28mm

focal length diagonal deg. diag. equiv. on 35mm
45mm         90              21+mm
50mm         83              24+mm
55mm         78              27mm

For 6x9cm:
focal length horiz.deg     horiz. equiv on 35mm
47mm         82              20mm
53mm         75              23mm
58mm         71              25mm
65mm         65              28mm
72mm         59              31mm
[n.b. since 6x9cm is same 2:3 ratio as 35mm, same 6x9cm to 35mm equivalencies apply if calculated from diagonals or vertical degrees]

Obviously, the widest standard lenses available on 6x4.5cm, 6x6cm, and 6x7cm SLRs are rather modest very wide angles in the 22mm to 30+mm range equivalents on 35mm SLRs. Naturally, you have to consider format differences (6x6cm square versus 35mm 2 to 3 ratio etc.). But if you crop horizontally (the widest case) you get the modest equivalencies shown. If you consider diagonal coverage most significant, you get the slightly wider factors shown. Even so, none of the standard lenses in 6x6cm, 6x4.5cm, or 6x7cm break into the ultrawide range at 20mm and below!

Q. Why is a center filter often needed with LF very wide angle lenses?

The design of a very wide angle lens to cover large format (4x5") involves such amounts of light fall-off in the corners that a center filter is often needed. Center filters are very dark in the center (1 1/3 stops or so), and get less dark towards the edges. This pattern evens out the light losses, so the image is more uniformly exposed (more critical on slides).

If you use a center filter, you usually drop 2 stops or so in exposure, and most of these ultrawide lenses are very slow (f/5.6 and f/8 and slower). Many large format lenses are not designed to be used wide open either (unlike the Zeiss Biogon 38mm on the Hasselblad Superwide, say). Most such lenses work best at f/22 or f/32 and beyond. In other words, hand-holding one of these ultrawides is limited to really bright light and really fast films.

Unfortunately, center filters often cost $200 and up - way up. The center filter for the Schneider 47mm XL ($1,400 from B&H;) is $370 at discount! (see homebrew center filter tips pages).

Q. What about the Hasselblad Superwide?

The Hasselblad Superwide is a non-SLR camera built around the Zeiss 38mm Biogon lens. The special body was needed to accommodate the short lens to film distance of the 38mm Biogon lens rear. The lens covers 90 degrees diagonally (which is roughly a 20+mm lens equivalent on 35mm SLR). Looked at horizontally, the lens provides circa 77 degrees of coverage ( or more like a 24mm lens on 35mm SLR when cropped 2 to 3 ratio).

Q. Why do so many people prefer non-retrofocus wide angle lenses?

Most 35mm SLR users are aware that their wide angle lenses use a special retrofocus (or reverse telephoto) design. This design is needed to enable the lens to be far enough from the film plane so the moving mirror in the SLR doesn't hit the rear of the wide angle lens or block it. But to provide that effect, the lens designer has to put in more glass elements which reduce contrast significantly and increase flare.

In other words, the non-retrofocus lens designs are simpler, with fewer elements, and so have higher contrast and lower flare than similar retrofocus SLR lens designs. Make that a lot more contrast in many cases. This nice feature explains why Hasselblad has both a 40mm retrofocus design for their SLRs and the non-retrofocus 38mm Zeiss Biogon for their Hasselblad Superwide camera. If you want the convenience of SLR focusing and precise rapid composition, you go with the Zeiss 40mm SLR lens. If you want images so contrasty they appear to be "engraved" on the film, you go with the Hasselblad Superwide and 38mm Zeiss biogon lens.

Q. What about these low cost war surplus Zeiss biogon aerial camera lens "bargains"?

Be aware that there were a number of war surplus Zeiss biogon lenses (e.g., 75mm) which may be offered up at premium prices (often without shutters) for wide angle medium format use. Many of these lenses have poor performance reputations, not due to the design, but to the variation in parts that were cobbled together to make these optics (wartime shortages and postwar parts issues).

You should also carefully test and ensure you can get these lenses into a leaf shutter or other camera mount for use. Many of the lenses have no provision for putting in a leaf shutter, since they were designed for aerial photography with a focal plane 5x5" aerial film camera. If you do get the whole camera and lens, the focal plane shutters often work poorly (light leaks..) and getting 24 volts to run the solenoids is another issue. Because of their short focal lengths (75mm typically), they are very hard to use with standard 4x5" cameras featuring focal plane shutters too.

So while the U.S. Government may have paid $2,300 US for them in WWII, but there are still many for sale after 50 years of surplus selling. Their current asking price of $125 to $250 US may be too much despite their name and design. Check carefully before buying to avoid lemons!

Q. Are there any similar non-retrofocus (biogon..) designs for less money than a used Hasselblad Superwide?

Sure. My personal favorite is the Koni-Omega 58/60mm wide angle lens, which is a biogon related non-retrofocus design. The 58/60mm lens with matching wide angle viewfinder is often found for $150-250 US and up. You can also use the full frame of the standard rangefinder window as I do, along with the 90mm and 180mm lens frames. In the KO/RO 6x7cm rangefinder, this lens provides supersharp and contrasty results, as does the other lenses for this rangefinder. This lens was made by Mamiya (with some earlier lenses made by Konica). For circa $500 US, you could have a 6x7cm rangefinder camera with both 90mm and 58mm leaf shutter lenses and interchangeable backs options. Given the lens quality, that's a great bargain IMHO ;-).

The 50mm f/6.3 lens for Mamiya Universal is a good bit wider, since it covers 6x9cm (56x82mm) rather than 6x7cm (56x69.2mm). This lens is also a non-retrofocus design. Unfortunately, the lens costs circa $500 US currently, not including the rangefinder body camera with grafloc back(s). The Mamiya Standard 23 (with limited body movements) or the Mamiya Universal (with polaroid back option) makes a great choice if you need those facilities with the 50mm lens. The resulting 6x9cm back provides coverage in a 2 to 3 aspect ratio similar to a 21mm very wide angle lens on a 35mm SLR.

You would probably have to go the latest Mamiya 7II 6x7cm rangefinder lenses to get just slightly better resolution and flare performance. And you would pay some kilobucks for the camera and the same for the lenses. So these Mamiya made non-retrofocus lenses for these older rangefinder cameras are great bargains. These budget RF cameras are heavier, harder to use, and don't have TTL metering built-in. But they do provide interchangeable backs and other options you can't get on the Mamiya 7II rangefinder in compensation too.

Q. What about the Plaubel and Brooks model Veriwide 100 cameras?

The Plaubel Veriwide 100 camera is a unique 6x10cm rollfilm camera featuring a 47mm f/8 Schneider Super Angulon lens. The Plaubel version is a compact (4x6x3") and lightweight (2 pounds/1 Kg.) camera with a wire sportsfinder or accessory optical viewfinder (e.g., 20mm 2x3 aspect ratio for 35mm). The rectilinear lens covers 100 degrees diagonally, or 88+ degrees horizontally - wider than an 18mm on a 35mm SLR! This coverage is much wider than the Hasselblad Superwide's 38mm Biogon (circa 77 degrees horizontally, 90 degrees diagonally). The 6x10cm panoramic format also provides for less cropping. Three (3) bubble levels on the camera help keep the camera level in landscape or portrait shots.

The Brooks XL Veriwide was a different camera, with interchangeable Graflok backs, typically the S-shaped Mamiya backs being used. The 47mm lens used had three variants, the older 47mm f/8, the faster and bigger 47mm f/5.6, and the later 47mm f/5.6 XL (better coverage) optic. Strangely, the larger camera had a smaller format size (reported as 6x9cm or actually 56mm x 82mm+/-).


Cambo Wide Camera with 65mm Nikon lens and Sinar Bag Bellows (custom)
Photo courtesy of F.P. Anderson & Andrew Van Dis (Websites) - Thanks!

Q. What about the Horseman Wide Field Camera?

Horseman Wide Field Camera Lens Data
Horseman 62mm f/5.6
f/stops center edge
5.6 excellent excellent
8 excellent very good
11 excellent excellent
16 excellent excellent
22 excellent very good
32 very good acceptable
Modern Photography, January 1972, p.100-1

The Horseman wide field camera uses a 62mm f/5.6 lens to cover circa 80 degrees. The lens features a Copal shutter with speeds from 1 second to 1/500th second, plus bulb. Focus is by a helical mount, providing a range from one meter (3.3 ft) to infinity. The camera is somewhat similar to the Brooks Veriwide 100, in that it has a Horseman removable back and front lens support section. The lens is separately cocked from film advancing (on the rollfilm back, providing a 2 1/4" x 3 1/4" and 2 1/4" x 3 3/4" images, depending on the back used). The price in 1972 was only $159 plus $75 for each back. A ground glass back ($22) could be used, or a simple wire frame with eyepoint index. The camera weighs 27 ounces, and is 5 1/2" x 4" x 3 1/2" in size.

Q. What about the ultrawide 4x5" Orbiter and later similar models?

See Orbiter 4x5 Super Wide Angle ad (courtesy of Jim Villet). There are various super wide angle panoramic and current specialty medium format wide angle cameras (such as the custom built Silvestri). Lots of folks just buy the used lenses and build their own custom bodies for fun and to save major dollars (see homebrew cameras).

The Cambo shift camera body (circa $350-450 US) provides a shell into which a grafloc back can be mounted. A grafloc back mount permits rollfilm backs from 6x4.5cm, 6x6cm, 6x7cm, 6x9cm, and 6x12cm to be mounted, along with ground glass for precise focusing and composition and polaroid backs to test shots. This ability can be very handy with a shift lens mount, provided the lens has the coverage needed to provide sufficient shifting capability.

Q. What about U.S. Government Surplus torpedo Cameras? Russian surplus?

Torpedo cameras were hung under the wing of a training airplane and used to record the precise release point selected by the pilot trainee to drop his torpedo (usually in place of the torpedo during training, cheaper and lots safer!). Their big attraction is a solidly machined flat film channel back adaptable for rollfilm in sizes up to 6x17cm or even 6x21cm and thereabouts! Big disadvantage is size and weight (just too close to the weight of the torpedo it displaced). You also need a monster coverage (read as "monster expensive") lens to cover that huge format. The 120mm f/6.8 Angulon (or later Grandagon for 6x21cm) lens is equivalent coverage (70.6 degrees on 6x17cm) to a 25mm coverage horizontally on a 35mm SLR. Using the 120mm f/6.8 Grandagon on the 6x21cm modified back, you cover 82.4 degrees horizontally or roughly a 20mm lens horizontal coverage on a 35mm SLR. Don't forget to figure out what kind of an enlarger you will use with such a monster!

Q. What about the other odd-ball panoramic cameras?

Since this really isn't a panoramic camera page, I'll simply point you to the interesting observations on panoramic camera coverage on the veriwide 100 pages. The key point is that the Fuji G617 with standard 105mm f/8 lens has the same horizontal coverage as a 24mm lens on a 35mm SLR. By comparison, the Veriwide 100 with its 47mm f/8 Super Angulon is a much wider 18mm equivalent lens based on horizontal coverage on 35mm. In other words, the much smaller and lighter Veriwide 100 gets in more angular coverage on its 6x10cm image than the G617 gets on its 6x17cm film (18mm vs. 24mm). Even if you crop and enlarge the 6x10cm ultrawide shot to the G617's 2.83:1 ratio, you still have more coverage on the Veriwide. Even if you use the shifts of the G617, you still have more coverage. If you don't make huge panoramic enlargements, the smaller 56x92mm negative is easier to enlarge (cheaper enlargers) and provides more coverage in its panoramic images. That is what sold me on the odd-ball veriwide 100 medium format camera in the first place! ;-) Still, the latest models feature interchangeable lenses (GX617) which are pretty nifty, if you need that facility and can afford it (cost of many new cars for full system). A handful of panoramic or ultrawide cameras using special lenses such as the 35mm and 45mm APO Grandagons can provide modest shifts and even wider coverage (below 18mm equivalent on 35mm SLR). But obviously, the costs are far outside the budget range.

Q. How do the various Fuji rangefinders compare to the G617 and other wide angle options discussed on these pages?

The Fuji rangefinders are compact cameras often recommended as traveling cameras. Costs are at the top of our budget range if bought new ($1000 US+), but often half that if bought used. How does the Fuji wide angle (GS690) camera compare to our other medium format options?


Our observation is simply that while great and nifty cameras for many users, these setups simply aren't wide enough to get us far into the wide angle range, let alone the very wide and ultrawide angle ranges sought here. To my mind, a 28mm lens on a 35mm SLR is just starting the wide angle range, and a 38mm lens is wider than the 35mm lens many folks use on 35mm SLRs as their default normal lens. Note that the same 90mm lens is used on both the 6x7cm and 6x9cm models, with different masks and mechanics.

Q. What ultrawide and fisheye options exist for the small budget medium format user?

At the $100 US and below price point, you might consider ultrawide and fisheye adapters. These adapters fit on the front of the standard normal lens (typically 70mm to 90mm or so on most formats). The adapters provide a 0.6X, 0.5X, or even 0.42X superwide effect. Distortion is relatively high on the 0.42X superwide adapter, which is a unique image effect worth exploring in its own right. Cost is very low, circa $50 US plus filter ring adapter if needed ($10-15). The 0.6X and 0.5X adapters are often a bit less, often $25-40 US. There is also a unique 0.18X (or 0.15X) true circular fisheye adapter with its own aperture setting optics, often found for $50 to $100 US on the used market only.

The 0.18X fisheye adapter multiplies the lens focal length by a factor of 0.18, yielding a remarkably wide 15mm equivalent on 6x6cm (80mm x 0.18=15mm). Wow!! You can use the adapter with other lenses, so a 150mm telephoto with the same 0.18X adapter yields a 27mm fisheye equivalent. These images actually cover circa 160+ degrees hemisphere as a circular image on film (larger lenses make larger circles etc.).

The 0.42X superwide adapter also multiplies the lens in use by a factor of 0.42. So an 80mm normal lens on a 6x6cm Hasselblad looks like a 34mm ultrawide photo, with lots of distortion plainly visible (i.e., not rectilinear). The 0.5x and 0.6X wide angle adapters produce less wide effects (e.g., 80mm x 0.5=40mm) and less dramatic distortion as well.

Naturally, these optics won't have the same sharpness and contrast in the edges of a prime optic. But in many cases, there is no prime optic available below 40mm in some systems. And on a budget in medium format, you can't come close to these effects for $100 or less any other way. Compared to 35mm, the medium format larger film area helps hide many of the defects of these low cost optics, while delivering images you can make in no other way (well, maybe in Photoshop ;-).

Q. What about stitching panoramics together using computer software?

Various programs exist to enable you to "stitch" photographs together easily (some are free - see panoramic photography page links). With this software, you can take a series of photos with a regular camera lens and put them together in software to yield a panoramic image with surprisingly little distortion. Great idea!

Some tripods feature sets of markings to use with standard 35mm or 6x6cm lenses to shoot these panoramic photo sequences. You can do similarly with a homebrew shooting guide constructed out of a protractor. Be sure to leave a bit of overlap on each shot so the software can use that overlap to assemble the final image as a continuous image with no gaps.

You also want to use a bubble level to ensure that the tripod is really level, to reduce image effects of undesired offsets (up and down..). Finally, you will need some sort of output device to ensure you can get the desired final print. Some of the newer Epson color printers using archival inks are capable of remarkable output in a panoramic format on special papers.

Q. What about those low cost surplus 75mm f/1.9 lenses and shutters used in Oscilloscope cameras?

At first glance, these fast 75mm lenses and shutters look like great candidates for a homebrew very wide angle 6x12cm rollfilm panoramic camera or a 4x5" ultrawide camera design. Sorry to say, but these 75mm (3") lenses are optimized to image a 5" diameter CRT screen onto polaroid film. The coverage at infinity is barely sufficient for a medium format (6x4.5cm) image. This lens only covers the #665 polaroid size (about 3x4") as the lens is extended for closeups, doubling its effective coverage at infinity. The Ilex #3 shutter usually used has neither flash contacts nor is it usually threaded for mounting on a lens board. The 75mm f/1.9 lens looks attractive as a speed lens in medium format. But it is optimized for closeup work at macro distances and performs poorly at other distances due to aberrations of the lens (see related postings).

Q. What about those low cost war surplus 75mm biogon lenses available cheaply at surplus shops?

Why haven't ultrawide camera fans snatched up these 75mm biogon design surplus lenses, given the dirt cheap prices ($100-ish+)? The answer is they are hard to put to use. Many of these surplus lenses are reportedly of mediocre optical quality. The story goes that these lenses cost the U.S. Government thousands of dollars to produce these lenses. But many of the lenses were assembled from excess parts, when quality control was rather lax. So quality and performance can be variable, and often mediocre or just plain bad.

The even bigger problem is getting a shutter fit to these lenses, which have huge elements and too small dimensions for mounting a shutter internally. Few focal plane 4x5" cameras seem to work well with the limited lens to film distance (~2+") and large lens size, making mounting and use problematic. The usual solution of a packard shutter in front of the lens runs into problems with the ultrawide angle coverage of the lens.

Do you already have one of these lenses? Do you want to try it out with minimal effort and expense for landscape projects? Use the old photographer's "hat trick" in place of a shutter. Consider mounting a 4x5" film holder at the back of a pinhole style box camera. Mount the big lens at the front in place of the pinhole. Put a sheet of neutral density gel filter at the rear of the lens (using silicon putty, see tips). Stop down for maximum DOF (use drilled waterhouse stops if needed). Using a loupe and a piece of ground glass, adjust the lens position to bring subjects at infinity into focus at the film holder position. Use a hat or other covering to cover the lens. Remove the dark slide on the film holder, remove the hat, count off the exposure time (in seconds), and replace the hat and dark slide and develop your film.

Q. Summary on budget options:

Ultrawide angle fan(atics) in medium format don't have many options. If you are on a budget, you have even fewer. Still, you can get very wide and ultrawide angle effects using the low cost fisheye ($50-100 US) or 0.42X superwide adapters ($50 US). You can create panoramic photographs with minimal distortion using computer software to "stitch" such images together.

There are a few bargains out there. The Kiev 30mm fisheye is a good example. Here is a true 6x6cm fisheye which can be bought with either the Kiev 88 SLR or Kiev 60 SLR for circa $500 US. They also feature some modest cost very wide angle rectilinear lenses from 45mm on up. Finally, the Kiev cameras have three (3!) shift lenses, albeit with modest shifts and rather close in focal lengths (and costs).

Besides the Kiev, a few older cameras offer 40mm lenses (in 6x6cm) such as the Bronica S2/EC nikkors or the Norita 66 Nikkor ($400 up). You could probably put together a Bronica C2 SLR with 40mm Nikkor for under $750 US, or perhaps under $1,000 for the Norita 66 with 40mm Nikkor?

Disposable 17mm Panoramic Camera from Konica (35mm)
Konica is marketing a throwaway (single use) camera with a 17mm lens for 35mm (24x36mm) use, called "film-in superwide". Hold at arm's length, facing you, and you can get torso portrait shots of yourself and 2 friends! 27 exp of Centuria 800 ISO film. USA introduction date is not set yet. How about a really cheap 17mm lens for circular MF superwide projects on 4x4cm? Or maybe a future ultrawide Holga 120UW? ;-)...
Source: From Popular Photography and Imaging January 2003, p. 43.

From: jbh@magicnet.net (John Hicks)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Comments on Graflex XLSW

jmlacy@flash.net (Joe Lacy) wrote: 

>Hello,
>
>I am considering the Graflex XLSW system

The XLSW isn't a system, it's one specific wideangle camera.

Drawbacks are that it's guess-focus or groundglass-focus, the 47 f8 SA doesn't get very sharp out towards the corners until f16, and use of an optical viewfinder can be difficult. Of the commonly-available viewfinders that give about the same angle of view, the Contax 21mm viewfinder for the G cameras works fairly well on the XLSW mainly because the eyepiece sticks farther to the rear so your nose won't be quite so mashed flat against the rollback.

IMHO you'd be _much_ better off to find a nice used Pentax 67 and 45mm lens.

If otoh you're thinking of the XL RF camera system, it could be workable but remember that it's all been discontinued for quite a while, it's rather limited on close-focusing, the focusing helicoid has some very weak points (lugs wear out and break) and, for a wide lens, a decent 58mm Grandagon is expensive imho far out of proportion.

As for the XL, I can only speak of performance of the 80 f2.8 Zeiss Planar; while it's a good lens it's _not_ in any way superior to the later black-barrel Mamiya 80mm TLR lens.

A good alternative to the XL is the Mamiya Universal; actually it might be preferable because the straight-across film path is commonly said to give better film flatness than the reverse-curve path in the Graphic backs.

---
John Hicks

[Ed. note: the 24mm is a custom Zeiss lens for Hasselblad 6x6cm fisheye]
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000
From: LEO WOLK bigleo@worldnet.att.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: 105 UV Sonar

This is perhaps a rational approach to pricing this lens, but not a realistic one, based on my own experiences. The 24mm f3.5 Distagon is considerably RARER than the 105 UV Sonnar, it was made for an equally specialized application, and I'm sure it certainly didn't cost ANY LESS than the 105 when they were basically CUSTOM MADE. A couple of years ago KEH had two 24's for sale, the lesser of which (E+) was priced at $4500 (it was marked down from $7000). I KNOW this for a fact, because I seriously considered buying one at the time. If KEH, with their extensive ability to market a specialized item like this (certainly more than anyone on this list could hope to acheive) was selling the 24 for $4500, then it seems unlikely that the 105 would be worth any more.

Remember, the 105, even though it was "special order" was still a catalogue item. The 24 was strictly "custom made" by Zeiss! Even the thought of having anything custom made by Zeiss makes my credit card warm!

Just my 2 cents worth, Leo. 

>I've done a little checking.  The new price today for the 105 UV
>Sonnar is $15,000 US.  The lens has such little traffic on the used
>market that it is not even listed in the Blue Book of used photo
>equipment.  But a fair market price today, even for a minty, older
>lens of this type, would be around $7000 to $8000 US (about half the
>new price) according to those who deal in used equipment daily, I
>talked to.

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: Zeiss 24mm???

Eduardo Aigner wrote: 

> The 24mm f3.5 Distagon is
> > considerably RARER than the 105 UV Sonnar, ...
>
>     What lens is this??? An extreme fish eye??

This is a one-off, special design lens, with an angle of view of 300 degrees. It was made in 1984 by Zeiss on special order from a client in the rubber tire industry, and was meant to help inspect the inside of tires. It is a f/3.5 lens, with minimum aperture of f/5.6 (1.5 stops !), and it is in a shutterless mount, though not a F-mount, but rather a modified CF-mount (It still has a (useless) shutterspeed setting ring (without markings), and a (also useless) pc-flash terminal). Some are said to be fitted in a full functioning (shutter!) CF-mount. Close focusing limit is 10 cm. It has 9 lens elements, one of them being a special yellow filter, making this lens unsuited for general colour photography. Apparantly 50 were made, and some might still be available (you might want to contact Hasselblad ;-) ).

[Ed. note: Mr. Fuerbringer is a noted panoramic camera builder/adapter - cf his shift camera adaptation of the veriwide cameras etc....]

Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000
From: ralph fuerbringer rof@mac.com
To: panorama-L@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: FW: 12mm/f5.6 Voigtlaender Ultra-Wide Heliar for Bessa-L (M39)

Willem Jan-Markerink passed along some interesting information on the upcoming15mm f5,6 heliar in lsm, seeable on the voightlander site. unless of optical quality far surpassing the heliar it won't be in the same optical class as the 35mm apo-grandagon.

the 35mm apo-grandagon according to view camera is the equivalent of an 11.5mm lens on 35 format and allows a 5mm shift on 612 as well.

according to me as manufacturer of vistashift 612 cameras using this as well as the 45mm, 55mm apo-grandagons the 35 apo has the micro contrast and freedom of distortion of the legendary biogon 38mmf4.5 on the superwide hasselblad. it covers more than twice the area of that icon (I have one) with a shift yet. it has a max aperature of f4.5mm, not f5.6.

some might find the 12mm finder useful on 612 and the extra coverage vertically would show the possible shift however finders are notorious distorted, inaccurate this wide. horseman's $450 "newly developed finder" for 612 is optically identical to those cheap .42x attachment lenses for camcorders and ps. i find a finder a waste of time on a lens of this extreme coverage though perhaps the new reflex finder could be useful if it has a 12mm aux lens w/o semi fisheye distortion.

actually this angle seems to equal your periferal vision. i generally hold the 612 w/35apo chest high, checking the vertical and horizontal levels and point myself at the center of the picture. I print sample pics for the 612 camera 12"x24" . no one has suggested how to crop or compose even one of fifty pictures any better. gg which i have but find are too slow and hard to see at this extreme angle. just like my 612 with the apo 35(shift valuable at ground level) the 12mm on any 35 rf it fits should be the one real 35 point yourself and shoot. that may offend the tripod set but spontanaety is one of its attributes.

W-JM called it a niche lense. it is not the most useful wide angle for general use. like the 35apo on 612 it will miniimize people and exagerate foreground incredibly(more so as 12mm has no shift).i wouldnt trade 21 or 15mm pentax(zeiss designed asherical) not even 15mm heliar in a hurry even if the 12mm approaches the quality of the 35mm apo-grandagon.

one other problem has not mentioned: fall-off. w/o centerfilter the extreme corners will get a miserable fraction of the light dead center. that has nothing to do with optical quality. its a mathematical equation. i believe before you weep you square the distance from the center of the lens to the film, and square the distance from the center to the extreme corner. result is probably 10x or worse.

ralph

....

From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000
From: Ian Goodrick goodrick@appleonline.net
Subject: Re: Quality Zeiss Biogon 38 vs Rodenstock Apo-Grandagon 35(ArcBody)

DAVID R. (JSC-DB) at david.r.williams2@jsc.nasa.gov wrote: 

> Ian, are you saying that the lens/system on the 35-ARC has equel sharpness
> in the corners, equel contrast and depth of field (without using the tilt
> fuction on the ARC)compared to the 903SWC(or even your older model 903) ??

As I said originaly I have not done a head to head check so I can not say they are equaly sharp or equally contrasty.

There is more light fall off with the 35mm ARC and the centre filter is essential. As for DOF the 35mm Arc has greater DOF than the SWC due to the shorter focal length of lens.

--
Ian Goodrick

goodrick@appleonline.net

Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000
From: Bob Salomon robertsalomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Super Wide Angle Field Camera?

The Linhof Master Technika 2000 accepts lenses from the 35mm Rodenstock Apo Grandagon up to the T Nikkor tele lens. It accepts roll holders up to 612 and a grip and a finder. It can be used hand held without camera movements and on a tripod with back and front corrective movements.

--

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: Lance Bledsoe 
> Organization: SBC Internet Services
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
> Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 12:09:08 -0500
> Subject: Super Wide Angle Field Camera?
>
>
> Is it possible to get a field camera with a
> very wide lens such as Schneider 47, 65 etc?
>
> I would like to have a general purpose camera
> which would allow me to shoot 6x12 panoramas
> with shift, but also function as a field
> camera as well.
>
> It's been my impression that many of the
> current field cameras will not allow either,
> very short lenses, or rise and fall when  
> using very shoert lenses (such as a Cambo
> SuperWide will do.)
>
> I would appreciate any ideas about this...
>
> Regards,
> Lance
>
>
> --
> Lance Bledsoe                  lwb@lantx.com

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000
From: "Wayne D" wdewitt@snip.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Super Wide Angle Field Camera?

Mike Walker of Walker Camera has two wide-angle versions of his Titan camera. Either one will probably fit the bill.

The following link is a page from his site, he has specs on his "standard" wide-angle camera there - the XL is so new it doesn't yet appear there. View Camera magazine had a write-up about the XL in one of the most recent issues.

http://www.ukcamera.com/manufact/walker/wide.htm

Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000
From: Chris Ellinger ellinger@umich.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Super Wide Angle Field Camera?

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000
From: "john" stafford@vax2.winona.msus.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Super Wide Angle Field Camera?

Lance Bledsoe lwb@lantx.com wrote 

> Is it possible to get a field camera with a
> very wide lens such as Schneider 47, 65 etc?
>
> I would like to have a general purpose camera
> which would allow me to shoot 6x12 panoramas
> with shift, but also function as a field
> camera as well.

Look at the Silvestri. It has about 15mm rise/fall, handles 4x5 yielding 60x120 with the newer Super Angulon 47mm, and of course handles roll film, and has many other options.

Or make your own:

http://wind.winona.msus.edu/~stafford/sandwich-4x5/sandwich.html (I do not have pictures of the version with 20mm rise/fall, and there must be better examples of homemade super wides out there.)

Date: 06 Sep 2000
From: vilntfluid@aol.com (VILNTFLUID)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Super Wide Angle Field Camera?

The Canham DLC 45 will give you the range required. You won't even be required to purchase a WA bellows. It is not a specifically a superwide, though.

Another alternative is the Ebony 45SW.

Keith

Date: Thu, 07 Sep 00
From: w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Super Wide Angle Field Camera?

...

Both Horseman and Silvestri also take the 35mm Rodenstock at 6x12cm, Horseman even in a dedicated 6x12 kamera (lovely compact too)....:))

Of course, if angle of view is taken literally, then nothing beats a swing-lens camera, with 130 horizontal angle of view....ones like Noblex are even more compact than the abovementioned Horseman....a Noblex 150 even fits in my MiniTrekker (and is taken with me skiing in a PhotoTrekker).

--
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000
From: Roger contaxaholic@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: 38 Biogon

Executive summary: Most wide angle lenses are very good for MF. 35mm wide angle loose too much picture detail when enlarged. LF wide angle, although much more inconvenient to use, has the overall advantage IF you use LF film: 4x5, 5x7, 8x10. But, per my experience, even on MF film, I suspect it would take a very trained eye to detect differences.

The format size of the film can have an effect due to differences in thickness between formats.

Overall, you have a respectable selection of lenses you 'tested', but not all-inclusive by any means [which is not news to you, I know], and comparing 35mm, MF and LF wide angles all at the same time leaves a lot of room for discussion/debate. Not that I particularly care to go there, either. Now, if you were just comparing the 903swc to Rolleiflex, Mamiya or the Contax 645, that might be more meaningful for some folks. That is a favorite argument for some, that it must be apples to apples. Probably more true if the person is a scientist or optician, or just really picky. Outside of the scientific test laboratory and out in the non-clinical real world, where pictures are taken under a variety of changing conditions and subjects, however, the rest of us are not constrained by the scientific experimenters strict rules. The dickens with the rules.

So, I, just like you, develop a feel for the lenses and that transcends the format issue. In that sense, your comparison if more realistic and carries all the validity granted by such. The scientist might laugh and say then that means it has no validity. But, it has validity nevertheless. Real world usage type of validity. You're not in a laboratory, and most people don't shoot in a laboratory either. You shoot with the lens, you see the slides when they are developed, you notice things in the slides that are better/different from slides taken with other lenses, other cameras. You see what the lens can do, what it's limitations are, what subjects it is good with, how much it weights, how it handles, etc. You probably have favorites for certain situations as a result of your empiracle tests and usage. (Hasselblad lenses feel really good, at least to me, by the way! Solidly built, silky smooth precision, etc.)

Devils Advocate time....

It would be interesting to blow up 30x30 pictures [crop as necessary to 30x30 dimensions] taken with all the lens you mentioned and have a panel of photogs review them and try to match the photo with the glass used to take it. It could be rather revealing or humbling, depending on how well each photog correctly matched them up. I say that because sometimes, as photographers and equipment owners, I wonder how often we are blind to objective evaluations of our own equipment.

I have recently seen some shots taken with Mamiya equipment. Lets just say that they were awfully awfully color saturated, crisp, contrasty, and would certainly give the 38mm Biogon a run for the money. I for one don't know if I'd be able to differentiate pictures taken with the Mamiya 7 II vs. the 903SWC, as long as the resulting enlargment was of the same dimensions. It's a tough call. The Mamiya lenses are good. Very good. I've also heard very good things about some of the Schneider lenses for the 6008i and the Contax 645. You might be surprised at what you can do with those cameras, plus they have built in light meters, giving them a speed advantage over the 38mm Biogon on the 903SWC.

Comparing view camera lenses to MF lenses.....LF pictures, enlarged to the same size print as those taken with the 38mm Biogon have the advantage, at least as I see it. Try a Schneider 110xl or a 150xl on 8x10. For one, there is less enlargement, and zero grain, plus smoother tonality. I recently saw some 5x7 Fuji Provia F slides taken by Nick Meers who was showing pictures at a seminar about architecture and shots he'd taken for the English National Trust. He used a Schneider 72mmXL. In a word: Awesome! [By the way, Fuji Provia F is available in Europe, but not USA]

Forgive me if I rambled on too long. I hope most of you found sentiments that agreed with your own.

Roger

--- RICH leicaman@email.msn.com wrote: 

> In answer to your question I have used the 15MM
> Hologon made for the Leica
> rangefinder, The 40MM & 50MM wide angle lenses made
> for the Hassi 500 series
> cameras and pretty much the whole series of angulon
> series lenses on 4X5 and
> 8X10 cameras.
> I still like the performance of the 38MM Biogon
> better.  I have never used
> the longer focal length Biogon you mention... but I
> bet it's great.
>
> Rich

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000
From: Mattei mattei@cts.com
Subject: Re: hassy swc non t* vs new 903

Patrick:

Somewhere, I read the difference as being a bit better performance from coated, newer generation optics when dealing with flare & near-oblique lighting situations. The questions begs to be asked: With some very careful composing, wouldn't most situations be fine with an older Biogon? I've got an older black-barrel SWC from the year just the M modification. With the shade in place and the occasional use of a foamcore board or my body for shading I've really had no problems over the years. I would have been using the shading board in these situations with another optic anyway, I think. The whole price thing is not a linear one anyway. Over the years labor costs have risen greatly. The asking price for a new SWC is in line, relatively, with older prices- if not actually less. Your price is alright - go for it!

you wrote: 

>Has anybody compared the quality of pictures from an old swc non T* biogon
>kit to the newer ones. I could get a non t* for about $2000 while buying a
>new biogon 903 would cost about $5000? Similar used 903's are going for at
>least $3500 with about $4000 for a good kit.
>
>Is it worth the extra price?

Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001
From: remove.david@meiland.com (David Meiland)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 40mm Vs 38mm SWC Biogon

"Mark Carney" pedigreeproductions@earthlink.net wrote: 

>I would like someone with experience using either of these wide angles to
>rant and rave on the pros and cons of one vs the other.
>There have been a few times in the last couple of years where my 50mm was
>less than adequate for some cramped interior work.
>I can rent a 40mm but don't know anyone with the 38 Biogon.
>Some practical insight would be appreciated.
>
>Thanks
>
>Mark

I've used both quite a bit, and it's a tough call.

The 38 is the superior lens optically--it's easy to see if you compare negs side by side under a loupe. It has less distortion and is sharper.

Usability is the main issue to me. With the SWC I've always used a prism or chimney attached to the back to compose and focus, and then switched over to the film magazine. I've definitely taken some pictures of the back of the lens cap. I've never liked the little optical finder--it's hard to look through and the distortion is significant around the edges. So, using the 38 is a little like using a view camera--slow and deliberate. That may be OK if you're doing architecture or something else that doesn't move around.

With the 40 you get to look through the camera like with your 50. You can work fast and shoot people at a wedding or whatever you want without a problem. You also get to buy huge filters for it if you're a filter guy. And, it's just not as sexy as the SWC.

So, get both!

---
David Meiland
Oakland, CA

Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001
From: "John Stafford" john@stafford.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 40mm Vs 38mm SWC Biogon

In my humble experience, the 38 Biogon is optically superior to the 40mm in terms of lower distortion. I've found only one modest virtue to the 40mm, and that is for work where the external finder of the SWC was a hinderance - for example, exact framing of the bottom of the picture, and with alignment of objects up close. (The work-around is to use the ground-glass back with finder, which works well enough but is inconvenient.) If you do a lot of the later, then the 40mm is better. (Oh, if you use a polarizer then the 40mm is handier, but I've managed to set the Biogon's polarizer after previewing with no problem.)

Date: 08 Aug 2001
From: bladnut@aol.com (Blad Nut)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 40mm Vs 38mm SWC Biogon

OTOH- I had a SWC and sold it, miss it to this day, been a few years now. I used it like a point and shoot many times with great results. Took it to Disney World with th e kids and shot with 400 speed print film and a small flash, just changing the shutter speed with different light. Zone focused and never missed a beat. Not the traditional use for the SWC but did a great job, quick and no family complaints about the time of MF and no 35mm quality prints. Just another slant on the camera, but I agree if you want to use it for critical architecture---get the focusing back adapter and chimney or prism.

Don Weston

Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001
From: "Eugene A. Pallat" eapallat@apk.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 40mm Vs 38mm SWC Biogon

Mark Carney wrote: 

> I would like someone with experience using either of these wide angles  to
> rant and rave on the pros and cons of one vs the other.
> There have been a few times in the last couple of years where my 50mm  was
> less than adequate for some cramped interior work.
> I can rent a 40mm but don't know anyone with the 38 Biogon.
> Some practical insight would be appreciated.

The lens on my SWC is razor sharp and no noticable ultra WA distortion. Most of the time I use it on a tripod with a cable release. For critical composition, I use the 41050 focusing screen and PME45. The price was too good to pass up. Bought it from Buster Ostler a couple of years ago for 2300 USD and it's in mint condition. It seems that the SWC is rare enough that good used ones aren't easy to find. I had Pro Cam upgrade it with a SWC/M kit so I can use the Polaroid back.

Gene Pallat

Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001
From: "Keith Wiebe" keithw@southwind.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 40mm Vs 38mm SWC Biogon

If doing interior shots don't you want some kind of perspective control? For the price of these lenses you could get a decent field camera that has movements and a decent wide angle lens. Why spend this kind of money and it still won't take the kind of pictures you want?

Keith Wiebe

Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001
From: -= H.=- fakeaddress@telia.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 40mm Vs 38mm SWC Biogon

...

No one has yet mentioned the ArcBody. Although I haven't used it myself, I assume that it's very adequate for indoor work. It has movements, and there is even a 35mm lens. It's not that much more expensive than a CF40FLE or SWC, but perhaps more difficult to find on the used market.

--
/Hskan 

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 
From: ralph fuerbringer rof@mac.com>
Subject: Re: 6x17cm - or wider smaller pan format? Re: input needed for	study
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au

i agree with Robert: the 612 format is more versatile. i will be selling the
 the "dream 6x17" made especially to shoot the tall buildings in new york. i
planned to us the camera vertically , throwing out the foreground to get a
612 final neg. i found the 47xl superangulaon can  cover the format fairly
well at f32 but  shooting at f11 and f16 it disappoints in  edge quality. i
found that my vistashif-612xxx wide with the 35apo-grandagon on 612 would
get me the same extreme coverage in the center of the image circle at f8
instead of 32 with better definition at that wide aperature than the xl at
43 .  blown up to equal size as the 47xl it looks far better. the
apo-grandagon 35mm is not approached by any other lens in covering power ,
brilliance and lack of distortion where it maximizess the 612 format
allowing a demonstrable shift. its horizontal angle on 612 is virtually the
same is Jim Romeo's 35 noblex and it is rectilinear with 50%more vertical
coverage and shift. a comparison
of the 35apo on 612 with the legendary biogon 38 on the superwide hasselblad
can be seen on Robert Monaghan's famous medium format site:
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/vista612.html   all hail 612: to get 220
i had a brooks back opened to 612 and a new wheel for auto stop installed.
meanwhile in france Bert McClure has found someome who can convert brooks
to 612 in a slick professonal manner which mine is not though it works fine.
he also has some entries on Robert's medium format gold mine.  ralph

> From: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu>
> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 
> To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
> Subject: 6x17cm - or wider smaller pan format? Re: input needed for study
> 
> well, I used to think that my dream camera would be a 6x17cm or even
> 6x24cm, then I made the mistake of pricing and hefting examples of 'em ;-)
> 
> I think the question is complicated by improvements in films, which are
> enabling larger degrees of enlargement, and improvements in 6x9cm MF
> lenses, which are providing wider lenses with shifting movements but only
> with enough coverage for 6x9cm or maybe 6x12cm?
> 
> A fuji G617 with 105mm lens is covering circa a 24mm lens on 35mm SLR
> horiz. angle of view IIRC? Even if you crop a typical 47mm XL SA 56x90+mm
> image to the same 2.83:1 ratio, you will still have over 20% more in the
> image in terms of degrees of coverage? (and so can crop a "shifted image
> equivalent" bigger than 15 degrees, again offsetting the shifting benefits).
> 
> personally, I think the 6x12cm models are more interesting, esp. with the
> newer wider lenses, unless you are doing seriously huge enlargements
> beyond 12 or 16X? The lack of really wide lenses in 6x17cm coverage with
> movements, coupled with ability to do large enlargements from 6x12cm or
> less, makes wide angle panoramic 6x17cm less interesting to me now than
> in the past. So I would recommend being cautious about projecting new
> markets and 6x17cm models, esp. with the overall medium format and LF
> market dropping 50% as it has in the USA in the last year per rpm-med fmt
> 
> HTH bobm
> 



From: Nathan Myhrvold nathanm@intven.com>
To: "'panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au'" panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au>, 
	"'rof@mac.com'" rof@mac.com>, "'rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu'"
	 rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu>
Subject: RE: 6x17cm - or wider smaller pan format? Re: input needed for st
	udy
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 

I have a question and comment.

There is a wide angle large format lense for 6 x 17 format - the 72 mm
Schneider Super Angulon XL.  I use it on a V-pan camera.  Obviously, a
monorail style view camera like V-pan is more cumbersome than the Fuji
GX617, Gilde or others.  However, although slower to set up, you do get
movements, which is often very useful.   Since you can't make an SLR this
size if you want to actually see what you get you need to look at a
groundglass anyway.  Also, the wider the lens, the more I find a need for
view camera movements.  However, the image circle does get you eventually on
super wides.  

I have a Cambi-Wide with 47mm SA-XL.  It has some (limited) shift.  I use it
4x5 and crop, or with a 6x12 roll film back.  How is this different than the
Vista 612 ?   

For quick work, it is hard to beat the convience of X-pan - albeit with a
smaller negative.

Nathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Monaghan [mailto:rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 4:15 PM
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: 6x17cm - or wider smaller pan format? Re: input needed for study


well, I used to think that my dream camera would be a 6x17cm or even 
6x24cm, then I made the mistake of pricing and hefting examples of 'em ;-) 

I think the question is complicated by improvements in films, which are
enabling larger degrees of enlargement, and improvements in 6x9cm MF lenses,
which are providing wider lenses with shifting movements but only 
with enough coverage for 6x9cm or maybe 6x12cm?

A fuji G617 with 105mm lens is covering circa a 24mm lens on 35mm SLR horiz.
angle of view IIRC? Even if you crop a typical 47mm XL SA 56x90+mm image to
the same 2.83:1 ratio, you will still have over 20% more in the image in
terms of degrees of coverage? (and so can crop a "shifted image 
equivalent" bigger than 15 degrees, again offsetting the shifting benefits).


personally, I think the 6x12cm models are more interesting, esp. with the 
newer wider lenses, unless you are doing seriously huge enlargements 
beyond 12 or 16X? The lack of really wide lenses in 6x17cm coverage with 
movements, coupled with ability to do large enlargements from 6x12cm or 
less, makes wide angle panoramic 6x17cm less interesting to me now than 
in the past. So I would recommend being cautious about projecting new 
markets and 6x17cm models, esp. with the overall medium format and LF 
market dropping 50% as it has in the USA in the last year per rpm-med fmt

HTH bobm




From: "Frank Filippone" red735i@earthlink.net>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net>
Subject: RE: [HUG] 40mm vs. 50mm
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 

Perspective distortion  comes from position and attitude ( looking up of
down) of the camera relative to the subject.  It is not affected by Fl,
manufacturer, witches or the Ghost of St. Ansel.  If YOU were 1 inch from
someone's nose, his ( or her) face would look funny too......  Back up, the
face will look better.  Prove this to yourself by shooting someone's face
( a 10 year old boy is very helpful for this) from 6 inches away.  Reshoot
it using the SAME lens at a distance of 15 feet.   The negatives will prive
to you thatr the head is a different size... smaller at 15 feet than at 6
inches.   Same lens, different position of the camera, different
perspective.  Now take the shot from 5 feet away using your 50mm lens,
change to the 150 lens, reshoot from a distance of 15 feet.  You will see a
different perspective, because you have changed position.  The head will be
the same size.

The rule of thumb is to use the lens that matches the IMAGE AREA you want,
from the DISTANCE you like the perspective from.  Pick the position fromo
the perspective you wish.  Then pick the FL from your ( infinite) choice of
lenses based upon what you want to record on the film.  Sometimes you can
not  back up or get closer than you would like.... then you WILL get some
form of image distortion, because what you wanted is not what you can shoot.
BECAUSE you can not stand where you want.

Barrel distortion comes from the glass in your lens ( as opposed to position
of the camera.)  Let's keep lens anomalies separate from perspective.



Frank Filippone
red735i@earthlink.net




From: Ralph Barker rbarker@pacbell.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Possible new recruit to large format
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 

David Grabowski wrote:

>
>My eye is on the 5.6 lenses anyway. I'm hung up on how much
>rise and fall is going to be required for my use at this
>point. Or, should I say , this issue isn't clear to me as yet.

Something around 20mm rise and fall (that's 20mm in each direction) 
should be sufficient for most purposes when combined with tilting the 
base and the front and back standards. The image circle of the lens is 
often a bigger issue, as some won't have enough coverage to match the 
extremes on the camera movements.

>I'm settled on:
>
>Field camera unless an irresistible and fairly lite mono shows
>itself.
>
>Wood or metal is not really an issue for me.
>
>Some back movement but healthy swing and tilt at the front.
>
>14-16 " bellows for my most used focal lengths.
>
>Hopefully F5.6 lenses. I don't need wider than 75mm. for sure,
>and not longer than 300 at this  point in time , as based off
>what I've read. A 150 would be very useful , as would
>something 240ish-300 . In medium format  I use the 65 quite a
>lot and 150-180 a lot in 6x7. If i'm just walking out and not
>knowing for sure what I may shoot ( not so likely but still),
>I use the 90MM as the default lens. In 35mm. a 40-45 is my
>favorite length for general shooting, 85-90 for portraits but
>do use a 28 for some scenics. In 6x6 it's a toss up between 65
>or 80 mm. and 135 is a great portrait length.
>
Don't forget to do the focal length equivalency conversions for the 
format size when thinking about focal lengths. (Charts are available on 
various sites.) Also, you might consider a telephoto design for 
portraits. A 360mm telephoto design, for example, can be focused down to 
about 10 feet with only 320mm or so of bellows extension. In comparison, 
a 300mm f-5.6 lense is huge (105mm filter size on the 300mm f-5.6 
Schneider Symmar, for example) . Being as you like 85-90mm for portraits 
on 35mm (which would usually be considered on the short side), you might 
get by with a 210mm lens on the 4x5, with a significant benefit to your 
budget.

With wide angles lenses of symmetrical design (e.g. the Super Angulons), 
the rear element (particularly on the F-5.6 lenses) can often get in the 
way of extreme rise and fall, as well. Take a look at the (relatively) 
new Super Symmars from Schneider - extensive coverage in a more compact, 
asymmetrical design, without the loss of the larger aperture. I'm not 
sure if  Rodenstock has a similar design. Both brands are excellent, 
although many older lenses can also be found on the used market.

>I don't understand the backs for large format yet( hands on
>should cure this). I don't understand ready packs regarding
>how it is they are ready ! Nor do I understand how a roll film
>back applies itself to large format in regards to fitting the
>camera.I guess it could be said  I'm more at a loss at the
>back of the camera than at the front, or about the bed vs rail
>design.
>
There are several good books on LF that will give you a better handle on 
the basics (the Kodak booklet is particularly useful for the basics). 
You probably want to look for a camera with an "international standard" 
back with Graflock fitting. That type will accept standard cut film 
holders, along with the rollfilm holders, readyload holders, and 
Polaroid holders.



From: "Jim Read" jrbham@btinternet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Finest wide angle lens for 6x9 no movements
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001


"Stuart" retek@optusnet.com.au> wrote...
> I am considering contructing my own camera.  I am looking at the
> Schneider Super Angulon 47mm 5.6 non XL.  Do you know of any sites
> that Cite test results on suitable lenses?
>
> THanks
>
> Stuart

Hmmm, it's not that difficult to incorporate movements, if you don't you'll
regret it, even the widest of lenses will need it at some point.

See;
http://www.btinternet.com/~jrbham/6X6/index.html

Regards

Jim Read



From: john@stafford.net (John Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Finest wide angle lens for 6x9 no movements
Date: 24 Dec 2001 

Stuart retek@optusnet.com.au> wrote...

> I am considering contructing my own camera.  I am looking at the
> Schneider Super Angulon 47mm 5.6 non XL.

Maybe Bob M has the charts. Dunno. The 47mm SA is not an impressive
lens in terms of contrast at any stop nor in resolution at small stops
compared to my favorite, the 38mm Biogon. But the non XL SA does have
a circle of coverage adequate to 10cm.

Here's a handmade that uses the very lens you mention:
  http://wind.winona.edu/~stafford/sandwich-4x5/sandwich.html
Yes, it's on a 4x5 and not what you are looking for (MF), so to
address your concerns ...

The lens in the photo came from a Brooks Veriwide I have. I have also
owned the F8 version on the Plaubel Veriwide.  (6x8, 6x9cm formats,
respectively) . One good thing about the lens is the focusing mount.
If you can find one mounted (or afford a separate focusing mount),
then adapting to another body is fairly easy. I saw a Zeiss Ikon
folder (sans cover) converted to use the 47mm/in-focus mount. Rather
impressive, compact camera.



From: remove.david@meiland.com (David Meiland)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Super-Angulon disapointment ? Opinions anyone?
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 

(Ministry of Truth) wrote:

>Thanks for the reply.
>
>I don't know yet if my Super-Angulon isn't sharp.
>
>I based my concerns on the test of another SA by Perez  and I assumed
>lenses of the same model and manufacturer would be pretty well
>identical.

It doesn't matter much what Chris's test showed, relative to your
specific lens, because as Richard said, these things vary a lot in
production. I have a 90/8 SA and it's a pretty groovy lens.

I don't think you'll get a satisfying answer to your question by
asking any of us. You need to test the lens yourself, and here's an
easy way to do it:

Load up a few sheets of film, and go out and find a brick wall
somewhere where the wind isn't blowing much. Set up carefully and get
a very nicely focused, very evenly lit shot of the wall. Expose a few
sheets of the film (f22 is good) and get them processed. I say a 'few'
because I never shoot just one, not having that kind of confidence in
myself.

Cut the neg up with some scissors. Cut a piece out of the center about
the size of a 35mm neg. Cut another piece off one corner, same size.
Get each piece printed at 8x10 and see what you've got. Make sure you
know which is edge and which is center. The edge piece will probably
be *slightly* less sharp than the center. If it's hideous, get a new
lens. I doubt it will be...
---
David Meiland
Oakland, California
http://davidmeiland.com/

**Check the reply address before sending mail



From: Stephe Thayer ms_stephe@excite.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Super-Angulon disapointment ? Opinions anyone?
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 

Ministry of Truth wrote:

> The SA was tested at 67lines/mm center and middle and 17lines/mm at
> the edge.
> 
> SEVENTEEN!!!!???
> 
> How can this lens be so inferior to the NIKON?
> 

I have an old chrome barrel f8 90mm and it's just fine. Just as sharp as 
the 135mm WF ektar I own which pulled much higher numbers on their chart. 
When may be happening is several things as far as the rez tested on that 
site. There may be a little curvature of field with this lens at the 
distance it was tested at, making it look bad. This wouldn't show up in 3D. 
 Also this lens was tested at f11 and f16 while f22 would have yielded 
better numbers. Possibly MUCH better

Last and most important look at the results from the several f6.8's they 
tested. One only yielded 12 lpmm at f22 on the edge while another example 
of the same lens pulled 61 lmm at the same settings! Maybe the lens THEY 
had was this inferior to a nikon they tested? Maybe the lens they had was a 
dud? Look at the test of a brand new 80mm they returned because it was so 
bad they couldn't even focus it? Bottom line, just because a lens tests 
well on someones chart doesn't mean the one you have in your hand is any 
good at all. Conversely just because ONE sample tests bad, doesn't mean 
they all are bad. 

Too many people have used these for too many years for them to all be as 
bad as the one they tested. Mine for one is sharp even when shifted all the 
way to the corners at f16- f22. Go do some testing and I'd suggest ignoring 
lens charts that only have one sample of the lens you are using on it.

-- 
 
  Stephe



From: "Klaus H. Peters" klaushpeters@t-online.de>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Finest wide angle lens for 6x9 no movements
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 

Stuart schrieb 
>I am considering contructing my own camera.  I am looking at the
>Schneider Super Angulon 47mm 5.6 non XL.  Do you know of any sites
>that Cite test results on suitable lenses?
>
>THanks
>
>Stuart

I do not know such a site. But I have friend who constructed and built a
camera that is similiar to the Hasselblad SWC. That camera takes the
Hasselblad A12 magazine and it uses the Super Angulon 47mm XL. When I see
pictures taken with this camera I always admire their great sharpness. It is
really crisp and as far as I can judge as good as the according Hasselblad
lens - may be even better.

Klaus.




From: "Gordon Couger" gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: homebrew 47mm 4x5" example... was Re: Let's Approch this
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 

"Stephe" ms_stephe@excite.com> wrote...
> Robert Monaghan wrote:
> >
> > see http://wind.winona.msus.edu/~stafford/SANDWICH-4X5/SANDWICH.HTML
> >
> > John Stafford's stunning 47mm XL f/5.6 in 4x5" mount using bender kit
> >
> That's exactly what I'm taliing about. Making a 6X9 version of something
> like this, even with a touch of down tilt built in wouldn't be very hard to
> do. If he uses a slip behind the glass roll film back, he could probably
> get someone to give him a spring back off a baby graphic to make it with.
> Make it at the "correct" focus, shoot at f22 and enjoy!
> --
I think a HP oscilloscope camera has a short bellows that might adapt its
self to something like this. You might also use spring loaded screws on the
4 corners of the lens board and a short bag bellows to get your tilts.

If it was me doing it I would buy a 4X5 wrecked speed or crown graphic on
ebay for $30 or 40 bucks for the Graflock back and the tilt and rise lens
board. I don't think you need to worry about focus unless you get real close
or try to use that  F1 lens I have in the garage. You will need the ground
glass for composition. I might consider putting some movement on the back.

Good luck
--
Gordon

Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger



From: jhicks31@bellsouth.net (John Hicks)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: homebrew 47mm 4x5" example... was Re: Let's Approch this
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 

john@stafford.net (John Stafford) wrote:


>IMHO at F22, the quality of the old 47mm F*8 (and F5.6) standard SA is
>completely unimpressive. One would really want to shoot at F11 for
>even modest performance.

  I went through that in trying a Graflex XLSW as a hand camera. The
47 f8 SA needed at least f16 to be reasonably good out toward the
corners (6x7) by modern standards but it was downhill from there. The
apertures needed for decent performance then required either slower
film or a tripod, meaning that it was no longer a hand camera, and at
that point there was no good reason to not simply use a 4x5 or slower
film in 35mm.
  Current lenses may offer better performance but then that removes
the "inexpensive" part of the equation.
---
John Hicks



From: "John Sparks" jsparks@agilent.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: SLR and wideangle lenses?
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 

Retrofocus wide angles have a couple of advantages over non-retrofocus
designs.  There is less wide angle distortion (put a round object in the
corner of the image and it will be closer to round with the retrofocus
lens).  The other advantage is that there is less light fall off toward the
edges.  Yes, a retrofocus lens design is more complex, uses more lens
elements, is bigger and heavier.  Before multicoating, there was a huge
difference in contrast and there is still probably a small difference in
contrast, but you don't necessarily get a better lens just because it's not
retrofocus.  In fact, current wide angles from Leica are somewhat retrofocus
and most consider them the sharpest lenses in their focal lengths that Leica
has produced (though they are larger, heavier and more expensive than the
older non-retrofocus lenses they replaced).

John Sparks

"Lassi HippelSinen" lahippel@ieee.org> wrote ...
> A straight focus lens is always better than a retrofocus lens. Less
> glassware, less weight, less price. Less internal reflections. The
> reason is that you can use an almost symmetric lens design (see Biogon
> vs. Distagon), which has naturally mush less lens errors to correct.
>
> -- Lassi




From: cmesa@ix.netcom.com (Jerry Fusselman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Plaubel Proshift W69 (was Plaubel-Makina 67)
Date: 16 Jan 2002 

Michael K. Davis writes 
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> I no longer have a Plaubel Makina 67, but here goes...
> 
> Steve King stking@duke.edu> wrote:
> 
> : Hey folks -- a family member was nice enough to loan
> : me his Plaubel 67. For those that are familiar with
> : it, I have a couple of questions....
>  
> : First, what are the "extra" framelines in the VF?
> 
> The little tick marks within the outer brightline frame show you how to
> frame the shot when you are focused at 1 meter instead of at Infinity.
> 
> : Second, I notice a *lot* of resistance on the film
> : advance lever; is this normal? It's significantly
> : harder to wind than, say, a manual 35mm SLR.
> 
> Yes - it's normal to feel a lot of resistance and it's normal for that
> resistance to be *jerky* or uneven.  Be careful not to apply excessive
> pressure at the END of a stroke - you can strip the soft brass gears
> inside - these cameras are notorious for that, but there's no need for
> concern as long as you proceed gently when advancing the film.  Also: It's
> my belief that you should never fire the shutter nor cock it with the
> camera collapsed.  The shutter release cable (and the light meter ribbon
> cable) travel within the scissors and makes their tightest radius turns
> when the camera is folded.  On the subject of the scissors, do not allow
> the lens standard to slam home under force of gravity nor with a flick of
> the wrist (like people tend to do with revolvers) when folding or
> unfolding the camera.  Doing this on closing the camera can pinch
> the cables (many a Plaubel Makina no longer has a functioning light
> meter) and doing it on opening the camera can cause the lens
> standard to lose it's parallelness with the film plane.  Handle it with
> care and you'll find this camera is quite robust.  That's not an oxymoron.  
> 
> : Finally, what sort of batteries does the meter
> : use? Are they stored in lens housing?
> 
> It uses Silver Oxide SR44's loaded into a compartment on the right side of
> bottom of the lens standard.  The meter is a ten-degree angle of view spot
> meter which coincides with the rangefinder rectangle in the center of the
> viewfinder. Press and hold the button on the rear, near the frame advance
> and make adjustments until both LED's are lit.  ISO speed is set via the
> very skinny, knurled ring that is adjusted from underneath the lens.
> 
> : Thanks, y'all. This appears to be a neat camera!
> 
> The 80mm Nikkor f/2.8 lens is legendary.  I especially love the bokeh it
> has. Try this experiment:
> 
> Set the focus at 1 meter - its closet focus.  Use a tripod and a tape
> measure to set the front element exactly 20 inches from the nearest
> subject, a flower for example, but make sure the background includes
> subjects at least 1000 feet away.  Set the aperture at f/22 and use
> whatever shutter speed is necessary for the conditions using a very fine
> grain film like Provia 100F or TMAX 100 if you prefer B&W.;
> 
> Now have a 16x20 print made and get a load of how nice the background
> looks.  Is it out of focus?  Yes, but there's something magical about the
> quality of it.  It is simply wonderful.
> 
> Depth of Field is certainly identical from one manufacturer's 80mm lens to
> the next, but this lens bestows a very pallatable, exceptionally appealing
> look to defocused areas - like no other lens I've worked with.  
> 
> I sold my PM 67 to buy a second Mamiya 7 II for doing MF stereography.  I
> would say the Mamiya 7 lenses lack this bokeh.  In fact, their bokeh is so
> *mechanical* and *unnatural* that I find any hint of defocus to be
> repulsive with these lenses.  I avoid selective focus shots now.  
> Fortunately, I also find the Mamiya 7 lenses to be sharper, just barely,
> than the PM 67's 80mm Nikkor AND they are interchangeable, of course.
> 
> Enjoy it!
> 
> Mike Davis


Thanks so much, Mike, very helpful indeed! I now keep a mental image
of the cramped wires in the camera, and in the future, I will avoid
using the camera controls when the camera is closed.

Do you (or anyone else, of course) have any information or thoughts
for owners of the Plaubel Proshift W69 with the Schneider Super
Angulon f5.6/47mm? I just purchased one to complement my PM 67. I want
to know what to watch out for to help keep it in good contition, and
any other hints would be appreciated too.

(For others who might want to know something about the Plaubel
Proshift, there are

http://www.mediakyoto.com/camerashopper/cla_came_e/plaubel69w_proshift_e/index_e.html

and

http://digilander.iol.it/clabo/mamiya/69w/

which are certainly helpful. I also spent many fruitful hours
absorbing information at

http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/cameras.html .)

I plan to regularly use the center filter and shoot around f/11 or so.
To invert the camera to shift down, I plan to use a Benbo XL---it
seems that that will work well. For fewer film reloads and for better
film flatness, I plan to use 220 film most of the time.


Regards,

Jerry Fusselman


From: largformat@aol.com (Largformat)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 24 Jan 2002 
Subject: Re: more surprises for Joe - re: galvin was Re: Well, ok

There were two Galvin models. One had 9" f bellows and one had 14". I used the
14" model with a 47mm Angulon about 20 years ago for some interior work. I used
a recessed board. It was fine for straight ahead work but the bellows binding
prevented any movements.

steve simmons



From: john@stafford.net (John Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: scoop on 6x9cm was Re: 56mm x 82mm = 6x9?
Date: 24 Jan 2002 

rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote 
> [ snip ]
> Bottom line: There are NO 6x9 cameras except those that use European 6x9 
> sheet film and the English size is 2.5" x 3.5". 

IMHO you are wrong. 3.5" is just short of 9cm, and besides I doubt the
sheet film holder gives you the whole sheet for exposure, so in the
end, it's is even shorter of the 6x9 goal. The early Plaubel is,
indeed, a true 9cm wide, and as tall as a rollfilm 2.25" can be.

I have owned both the Veriwides. I have the negatives in my darkroom,
and I measured them to settle this a year or so ago with Bob.  Plaubel
== 90cm (or 91 if you count the ultra edge of exposure, and the later
Brooks(Mamiya-Graflex) is 82cm (or so) wide.





From minolta mailing list:
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 
From: "Ze'ev Kantor" zeevk@bezeqint.net
Subject: RE: Re: Floating focusing

Floating Element just mean there is movement of the elements relative
to each other. In actuality, most of the time, this floating element
is the one in between, not the first or last. There being several
reason for it

ASAIK the "classic" floating element design is that the rear group(s) is
the floating one. The mechanism is very similar to zooming action.
In-between floating element is actually employed in "internal Focusing"
design, where an internal element is the only one that is moving during
focusing.

In fact, most usage of floating elements is not in Wide Angle lens,
but Macro Lens ( no prize for guessing why ).

Most Minolta wide angles (from 28 f/2 and wider) are floating element
design - I can verify this on my 17mm f/4, 24mm f/2.8 and 28mm f/2. My
MD 50mm f/3.5 is not a "floating element".

BTW, typical (but not mandatory) to floating element design is that the
front (main) objective body rotates during focusing but the rear
floating element does not. This is because the main moving / rotating
body includes additional cam or thread that controls the sliding
movement of the floating element.

Ze'ev Kantor
zeevk@netvision.net.il

...





from leica topica mailing list:
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001
From: Tom Burke tom@thbtotley.co.uk
Subject: 21mm Lens Comparitive Review


This week's Amateur Photographer has a comp review of the Leica 21mm
f2.8 ASPH vs the Voigtlander 21mm f4 Skopar.

The result is a win, on points, for the Leica; it has (slightly) higher
resolution and contrast in the centre and it is a stop faster. The
Voigtlander is smaller and lighter,  and 'has a better hold on its
relative contrast and defining power with less relative loss between
axial and edge'.


But there's the cost factor, isn't there. In the UK the Leica lens costs
1598 GBP for the black version, without viewfinder; the Voigtlander
lists at 350 GBP including viewfinder. Classic Camera has the black
Leica for 1379, the chrome for 1439 and the vf for 199. Their price for
the Voigtlander is 349, including the vf.

Tom Burke





from leica topica mailing list:
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001
From: Timothy Nelson timothy.nelson@yale.edu
Subject: RE: 21mm Lens Comparitive Review

> I chose the Kobalux on a basis where price and speed
> were major factors.  Others may have other criteria.

This is not a criticism of your choice, just an observation. The speed
of a very wide angle lens has a different practical effect than the
speed of, say, a 50mm lens, because you can easily hand-hold a 21mm lens
at 1/15 sec (1/30 for 35mm, 1/60 for 50mm, etc.) with "acceptably" sharp
results in same-size enlargements. A 21/2.8 is a very fast lens for
hand-held exposures and a 21/3.4 or 21/4 is comparable to a 50/2,
disregarding image-quality comparisons at full aperture.

Tim Nelson





from leica topica mailing list:
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 
From: Michael Darnton mdarnton@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: 21mm Lens Comparitive Review


"Feel" is the one thing that Voigtlander does have completely under
control. My Voigtlander lenses beat Leica ones heartily in the diaphram
touch test, with smooth solid clicks and no slop, and just the right
tension--buttery, right for day one. Until someone tells me differently
I'm assuming it's due to a larger ball bearing, and a detent rack of
brass instead of aluminum.

--Michael Darnton
...





from leica topica mailing list:
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 
From: "Paul Farrar" farrar@datasync.com
Subject: Re: 21mm Lens Comparitive Review

...


At 21mm, you need a really fast lens to get any subject isolation using
DOF. A lot of Eugene Richards's pictures could only have been done with
the 21/2 lens he uses wide open. That's why he uses Olympus, which for
20+ years had the only 21/2 on the market. (Sigma recently introduced
a 20/1.8.)

Paul Farrar






Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 
From: Peter Marshall petermarshall@cix.compulink.co.uk
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: XPAN


> I love my xpan and found the 30mm lens to be a bit wide for my liking
> but
> that's strictly personal preference. If anything I wish they had a
> longer
> lens than the 90, however it's unlikely they'll develop one according
> to an
> engineer at Hasselblad who's associated with xpan design. Optics for
> this
> camera are superb. The center filter is essential. B & H sells them for
> $234.
>
> Roy


Which is why I suggested the Mamiya 7 - if you want long lenses you can
buy one. Like the X-Pan its a nice camera to use, if anything slightly
easier for action shots. Unless you want the wider lens (which I did) the
only real advantage with the XPan is more shots per film. The Mamiya gives
you the ability to do panoramic format by cropping if you want to, or to
take normal format using a medium format neg. I use both cameras. Possibly
the Mamiya lenses have a slight edge, but both are superb.

If you always work from negative you don't need the centre filter with the
45mm as you can easily make the slight correction sometimes needed either
in the darkroom or in Photoshop. It often helps pictures to have a small
degree of darkening towards the edges, and it often is not even
noticeable. I'd always use it for transparency because it will be far more
noticeable. (I've been told Hassleblad kept it as a separate item because
they also felt it wasn't necessary for negative film.)


One comes included with the 30mm and it is always needed, difficult to
understand why it was not built into the lens really. The 30mm also has a
lenshood that stays in position, unlike the 45mm one which is easily
knocked askew.

As Mike Bell says in another post, if you really want a panoramic camera,
look at  Noblex. The page -
http://www.noblex.com/english/noblex/comparison/vergleich.htm

gives a good comparison. If you take the second picture (15mm) and crop it
to panoramic format, you get a good idea of what the 30mm XPan will do
(its roughly equivalent to a 16mm on 35mm format) and also perhaps
understand why Noblex didn't include it on this page.

Peter Marshall
Photography Guide at About          http://photography.about.com/
email: photography.guide@about.com










Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 
From: ralph fuerbringer rof@mac.com
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: Filter in general

thin, fat, huge front threads with stepup ring it is all b.s. with extreme
wide angle lenses with all filter and lens manufacturers. only rodentack
points out that when you screw in one of their 3 hundred to a thousand
dollar centerfilters into one of their 5 hundred to 3 thousand dollar lenses
you automatically reduced the image circle available.  how? the filter
threads themselves.  in other words you pay a huge price to get usable
exposure in the extreme corners which are of course no longer there anyhow.

  i have a line of tweaked brooks veriwides, the vistashift-612's, for which
i have solved this catch-22 with a 4-x and more factor thrown in. these are
reviewed on Robert Monaghan's superb medium format fountainhead

 http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/vista612.html

the solution is simple but not easily achieved.  i generally use over the
lens mount adapters and filter mounts which will accept mounted filters with
front threads 20 or so mm wider than the original lens mount. fat or thin is
immaterial.  summarizing: you cant screw anything into an extreme wide angle
lens without loss of imagae circle.  if you cant find an over the lens
adapter, you have to have one made or you have to accept the bum cropping
the filter and lens makers have done to your extreme wide angle lens. like i
said earlier, only rodenstock even admits to this inexcusable outright
fraud. ralph

> From: "M. Denis Hill" denis@area360.com
> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002
> To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
> Subject: RE: Filter in general
>
> Before those thin filters came out, I purchased a "wide-angle" 82mm Heliopan
> Kasseman polarizer for the 90mm f4.5 Grandagon I formerly used for view
> cameras up to 5x7. The front diameter is 105mm! I think I paid $360 for it.
> Having not used it in five years, I guess it will soon appear on eBay.
>
> M. Denis Hill
> Qualified Panoramic Photographer
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MMagid3005@aol.com [mailto:MMagid3005@aol.com]
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 
> To: charles.tait@zetnet.co.uk; panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
> Subject: Re: Filter in general
>
>
> Not too long ago I bought a polarizer for my Sigma 17-35mm lens.  Because it
> had to be ultra thin to prevent vignetting at 17mm, it cost about as much as
> my 1st car.  But that was 1950.
>
> Marty





Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 
From: "M. Denis Hill" denis@area360.com
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: RE: Filter in general

Thank heavens for Steve Grimes! His slip-on filter mounts seem to work
pretty well for this.

M. Denis Hill
Qualified Panoramic Photographer





Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 
From: "Mitchell P. Warner" indepth@mpwarner.com
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: RE: Filter in general

Fifteen, or more, years ago I purchased a 95mm PL for my Bronica 6x7, 50mm
lens. The filter, when reversed so that they treads are forward, 'just'
barely squeezes into the outer edge of the sun-shade on my 17-35, the lens
shade acting, in this case (I think), like the 'over the lens' system ralph
fuerbringer mentions. It's a tight enough squeeze that the filter has never
fallen out. Because the filter is reversed, with the threads pointing
forwards, the filter can still be rotated.  This same 95mm PL is adapted
to  72mm and a  90mm Super Angulon lenses and used on 6x12, 6x17 and 4 x
5inch and now even does duty in front of a 8mm fish-eye when used on a
Nikon995 in the F2 lens mode setting. I'd take credit for thinking all this
out in advance, but it was simple serendipity.

mitch warner





From: camartsmag@aol.com (CamArtsMag)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 16 Feb 2002 
Subject: Re: Need help choosing lens for architecture

...
>From: "theo" theo4a1@attbi.com

>I want to shoot interiors with my 4x5.  Would like to use same lens for
>exteriors and landscapes, if possible.  Am considering Caltar 75/4.5 or
>65/4.5.  I feel I need larger aperture for ease of composition in lower
>light situations.
>If anyone can also recommend helpful architectural photography sites, it
>would be much appreciated.


Here is a book you should read

Photographing Buildings Inside and Out by Norman McGrath. I am sure you can
find it on Amazon.com

The 65 and 75 might be too wide to start. I would think about a 90mm. It is
roughly equivilent to a 28 on a 35mm camera. The 75 would be my next choice.

steve simmons
view camera magazine





From: Stefan Patric tootek2@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Need help choosing lens for architecture
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 

 theo wrote:

> I want to shoot interiors with my 4x5.  Would like to use same lens
> for
> exteriors and landscapes, if possible.  Am considering Caltar 75/4.5
> or
> 65/4.5.  I feel I need larger aperture for ease of composition in
> lower light situations.
> If anyone can also recommend helpful architectural photography sites,
> it would be much appreciated.

The 65 and 75 are too wide for general work.  Start with a 90.  It is a
good general purpose wide angle for most any situation, plus the
coverage is good, so there is more than enough room for camera
movements, when needed.

The best reference book on shooting architecture is Norman McGrath's
PHOTOGRAPHING BUILDINGS INSIDE AND OUT.  Sadly, I can recommend no
books on the techniques of lighting interiors for photography.  Maybe
that's why I'm writing one.

I know of no web sites specifically on architectural photography.

FYI: I've been shooting architecture professionally for over 20 years,
and these 4 lenses have handled 99% of it -- 75 f6.8 Grandagon, 90 f8
Fujinon SW, 125 f5.6 Fujinon W, 180 f5.6 Caltar II (Rodenstock).

Good Luck . . .

--
Stefan Patric
tootek2@yahoo.com





From: Klaus Schmaranz kschmar@iicm.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: ultra wide angle lens for 4X5
Date: 07 Feb 2002

"Jaan" == Jaan Peets jaanp@attcanada.ca writes:

Jaan> I'm interested in suggestions for a lens meeting the following criteria:
Jaan> 1) significantly wider angle than 90 mm
Jaan> 2) enough coverage for reasonable movements with 4X5
Jaan> 3) prefer a modern lens

I have a Schneider SA 58 XL, f/5.6. It's a superb lens and provides
some movements when used with 4x5 film. The datasheet that Schneider
provides speaks about an image circle of 129mm at f/5.6 and 166mm at
f/22. This already allows reasonable movements, but from my experience
I can say that Schneider's given image circles are rather conservative
and a little more movement capability can be squeezed out of the lens
if absolutely desired. Not much, but a little...

However, two things are important with this lens:

- you have to use a center-filter, otherwise light falloff in the
  edges will be very noticable (some 1.5 stops). But this is a
  system-immanent problem of all wide-angle lenses.

- depending on your camera the front and rear standards are very close
  together and therefore movements can become a mechanical problem
  with your camera. Especially swings and tilts can exceed the limits
  of your camera.

If you want the ultra, ultra, ultra wide lens for 4x5 Schneider also
has the 47 mm SA XL, f/5.6. But... not really any movement
capabilities any more for 4x5. That's why I finally bought the 58mm.

Hope it helps,
  Klaus.








Tom Trottier's Olympus 24mm f/3.5 Shift Lens on Homebrew Body and Mamiya 6x7cm Back

Thanks to Tom Trottier for sharing this project and photos linked above and below with us!




Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 
From: Tom Trottier Tom@Abacurial.com
To: rmonagha@mail.smu.edu
Subject: MF_Wide_angle


RE: http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/wide.html

I just bought an Olympus Zuiko 24/3.5 shift lens along with an adapted 6x7
"body" that probably exceeds almost any other MF WA lens (100 degrees) -
but it vignettes severely in the corners.

The "Body" is hand-made with a Mamiya 6x7 roll back, and a T, B, 1 - 1/100
leaf shutter.

The lens has been adapted by cutting off the scalloped top and bottom
shades and removing the arm which signals the chosen f/stop to an Olympus
35mm SLR. But it  is still usable on my Olympuses as a shift lens with auto
or stopped-down metering.


See the attached files. [Links below:]


Sample Photo (750+ kb)


lens (shows silicon sealant site)


Zuiko shift lens


Tom

postscript:
..Also, I didn't construct it. I bought it from Peter Murphy in Australia.

------- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur -----------------
   ,__@ Tom A. Trottier +1 613 860-6633 fax:231-6115
 _-\_<, 758 Albert St.,Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7V8
(*)/'(*)        ICQ:57647974 N45.412 W75.714
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes from Lens Info Sheet (note 100 degree coverage..)!











From: Keith Davison keith.davison@ncl.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Why no MF SLR ultrawides?
Date: 18 Mar 2002


Just wondering why there are no rectilinear ultrawide lenses for MF SLRs?
I can use my Canon 14mm in 35mm and my Schneider 47mm XL in 5x4", but for MF
the widest seems to be the Pentax 45mm for 6x7 or the Hassy SWC 38mm for 6x6.
Neither of these lenses seem to have an angle of view equal to even a 20mm in
35mm format.

I know that you can get speciality LF lens/rollfilm combos such as the Horseman
612, Fuji 617 or the Vistashift that use MF film, but why no ultrawides for
mainstream MF SLRs when both 35mm and large format have them as standard items?

Keith Davison





From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why no MF SLR ultrawides?
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002


"Keith Davison" keith.davison@ncl.ac.uk wrote:

> Just wondering why there are no rectilinear ultrawide lenses for MF SLRs?
> I can use my Canon 14mm in 35mm and my Schneider 47mm XL in 5x4", but for MF
> the widest seems to be the Pentax 45mm for 6x7 or the Hassy SWC 38mm for 6x6.
> Neither of these lenses seem to have an angle of view equal to even a 20mm in
> 35mm format.

There's a 35mm for the Mamiya 645, and a 33- zoom for the Pentax
645. (The Pentax was announced in the April issue of the Japanese Commercial
Photography magazine. It's a 20mm to something or other (I don't remember
the exact length at the long end) equivalent.)

> I know that you can get speciality LF lens/rollfilm combos such as the Horseman
> 612, Fuji 617 or the Vistashift that use MF film, but why no ultrawides for
> mainstream MF SLRs when both 35mm and large format have them as standard items?

Probably there's no market for them at the prices they'd have to charge.
Also, they'd be too big to be much fun; the Hassy 40mm is a monster and the
Bronica is only slightly less unreasonable.

The Mamiya 645 is a nice light weight, but it seems pretty shoddily made:
both the demo models at the store I tried it at had flaky shutter releases.
But that 35mm lens is very attractive...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan





From: "roland.rashleigh-berry" roland.rashleigh-berry@ntlworld.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why no MF SLR ultrawides?
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 


This confusion crops up often. A "standard" focal length lens should be near
as damn it the length of the film area diagonal. For the 35mm format this
equates to 43mm. So if you have a 20mm lens on a 35mm camera then this is
about half the focal length of what should be the standard lens.  The
"standard" focal length for 6x7 is 92mm and so the equivalent of the 20mm
lens for 6x7 will be 43mm. So the Pentax 45mm for 6x7 is almost there. For
the 6x6 format the equivalent to 20mm in 35mm format would be 39mm and so
the 38mm you quote for the Hassy 6x6 format actually exceeds the 20mm lens
for 35mm format in terms of wideness.
...





From: hkkuebel@mail.ru (Hartmut Krafft)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why no MF SLR ultrawides?
Date: 18 Mar 2002

...

Apart from the reasonable answers the others gave, this might be
due to the optical laws: after all, the distance from the back
lens to the film plane is much greater on MF (SLRs, at least)
than with 35mm.

So the focal length of a wide angle lens may be less than that
distance, which means that it has to be built as complicated
'retro-focus' lens.

This will make it more difficult to achieve good quality at a
still reasonable price, especially when you also have to remove
distortion to get a rectilinear flat image.

 The Hasselblad SWC works around this problem by reducing the
distance to the film plane by omitting the mirror and the room it
takes.


(Some of the 'shortest' 35mm lenses are/were available for Leica
M39, where the mirror problem doesn't exist...)

Greetings
Hartmut




From: w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why no MF SLR ultrawides?
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 02

 Keith Davison keith.davison@ncl.ac.uk wrote:
>Just wondering why there are no rectilinear ultrawide lenses for MF SLRs?
>I can use my Canon 14mm in 35mm and my Schneider 47mm XL in 5x4", but for MF
>the widest seems to be the Pentax 45mm for 6x7 or the Hassy SWC 38mm for 6x6.

Nope, a Kowa 35mm for 6x6 is the widest ever.

Equals to 22.5mm when comparing it with the long side of a 24x36mm frame
(but less than 20mm (19.12mm) when compared to the diagonal, and 15mm when
compared to the short side of a 24x36mm frame).

>Neither of these lenses seem to have an angle of view equal to even a 20mm in
>35mm format.
>I know that you can get speciality LF lens/rollfilm combos such as the Horseman
>612, Fuji 617 or the Vistashift that use MF film, but why no ultrawides for
>mainstream MF SLRs when both 35mm and large format have them as standard items?
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
w.j.markerink@a1.nl
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]





From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 
From: george day geod@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] I'm thinking of buying a SWC

Another thought is the Mamiya 7 43mm lens. These days, you can buy a Mamiya
7 body and one of these lenses, new (not USA, naturally) for about the price
of a 20+ year old Hasselblad with a back.  Pluses and minuses:

a few pluses:

1)  I think the Mamiya viewfinder is frankly better.  It's big, it's bright
and what you see is pretty much what you get.

2)  You can shoot 120 or 220 simply by revolving the pressure plate.
Changing film is fast and easy, too.

3)  Religious camera affiliations aside, the M7 is a Biogon-style lens and
is easily as sharp as the SWC.  I know, I've shot with both.  Again, if you
need to make 40x50s, you're better off with a 4x5 or 8x10, anyway!

4)  You get more coverage.  Substantially more, in fact.

5)  You get a more film acreage and a format that, should you need or want
horizontal images for the "panoramic" look, is more suitable for
enlargement.

6)  The damn thing comes with a built-in light meter and, what do you know,
even aperture-priority mode. Works pretty well, too.

7)  If you must have a square image, well, hell, crop it.  At least, if you
need a horizontal image, you won't be cropping down to 6x4.5.

One and only downside. Well, two:

1)  It doesn't focus nearly so close as a hasselblad.  1 meter, actually.
For those dramatic close-ups and really tight shots, hassy is the way to go.

2)  Mamiya's lens hoods are a joke.  I haven't broken one yet, but I feel
like I will, any day, perhaps just by looking at it the wrong way.  However,
overall construction is very good and mine has performed flawlessly in all
sorts of situations.

Having said all that, I'd like a SWC/M and always have my eyes out for the
right deal.

 "Eugene A. Pallat" eapallat@apk.net wrote:
> ian.barnes wrote:
>
>> Hi there
>> I am thinking of buying a SWC to get the 90 degree coverage for some
>> interior work.
>> Any comments on good or bad models?
>>
> The 90 degrees is the diagonal angle of coverage, not the horizontal.  I
> had been looking for a good used SW and finally bought a used SWC a few
> years ago and had it modified to a SWC/M.  That allows me to use the
> Hasselblad Polaroid back.  The winding crank was replaced with a ratchet
> type to re-cock the shutter when the Polaroid back in on.
>
> I used it to shoot the inside of the conning tower of the USS Cod based
> in Cleveland, Ohio (USA) and the pictures are razor sharp.  The SW is
> mandatory in tight quarters since the room in the con is so cramped.  If
> I stretch my arms out, I touch both side walls, and there is equipment
> lining both walls.   There are also 2 periscopes blocking the interior,
> so a normal lens just wouldn't give the coverage needed.
>
> A friend uses the 40mm because he says he needs the reflex viewing.  I
> just use the ground glass back with a PME 51 for critical composition of
> stationary subjects.
>
> Gene Pallat




From panoramic mailing list:
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 
From: ralph fuerbringer rof@mac.com
Subject: Re: Low tech question.

Medium tech filter and ring info, many are unaware of: in respect to wide
angle lenses, many lose image circle when you screw anything into the front
threads, not that swinglens cameras have/need wide angle lenses at all. I am
referring to the super angulons, apo-grandagons, super symmar xl aspherical.
only rodenstock mentions this problem, publishing these startling,
threatening figures: the 55mm apo-grandagon loses 9mm from the diameter of
its image circle and its angle is reduced from 110 to 107 degrees when its
dedicated center filter is screwed in. you buy a center filter to get better
edge coverage, but hey catch 22 the far edge is eliminated altogether  by
the filter.  Further degrading of the image is from reflection of the screw
in ring on the film,this also in the rodenstock center filter brochure.

solution: for my vistashif-612 tweak of the brooks veriwide
(http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/vista612.html) i use over the lens filter
mounts, into which i remount the center filters. all center filters are
actually in step up rings to begin with. For example the dedicated center
filter for the 55 apo-grandagon has the 67mm lens threads on the small end
and 86mm on the front.  also in many the retaining rings are way to wide and
again can cut image. heligon center filters are the worlds worst in that
regard.

ralph

> From: AJNECP@aol.com
> Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 
> To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
> Subject: Re: Low tech question.
>
> I said adapter rings, I meant to say step-up rings.
>
> AJ





From Rollei Mailing list:
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 
From: Andrei.Calciu@hn.va.nec.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Medium format wide angle

Kevin,

I have a (dumb) question: why would you consider a Fuji 680? For about a
quarter its price, you can buy a Field camera 4x5 with all the negative
real estate that goes with it. Then you can buy rollfilm holders for 6x12,
6x9, 6x7, 6x6 even 6x4.5. This will give you all the flexibility in the
world (for real, not just simulated flexibility like on the 680). The
camera will be more versatile as formats go, plus it will weigh
significantly less than the 680. Furthermore, you have an open field for
large format lenses from el cheapo at 100 bucks or so for Ilex, and the
like, to the super duper Schneider or Rodenstock lenses (like you already
mentioned in your post).

I have been struggling with the question of who the heck would consider the
Fuji 680 cameras when the alternatives are better, cheaper, lighter?

Andrei D. Calciu





From rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 
From: Kevin Ramsey kramsey@trinity.nyc.ny.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Medium format wide angle

Hi Andrei:
I rent the Fuji several times a year for the tilt, shift, swing, rise, and
fall, and for the following reasons:

-When I need the convenience of an automatic-wind roll back.
-When setup and breakdown time is limited.
-When I need to quickly switch from vertical to horizontal throughout a shoot.

I find that the Fuji occupies the niche between the extremely limited
tilt/shift lenses available for medium format and the time consuming setup
needed for large format. Would I own this camera? I don't know. I only need
its functionality and ease of use occasionally, most of the time I prefer
to use the tilt/shift/swing lenses for my Canon, but sometimes I need the
greater flexibility and larger film size that the Fuji offers. I mentioned
it to Javier because I thought it might meet his needs and offered options
not offered by the 903 or the Mamiya.

About three years ago I was hired to shoot a new school building that had
classroom and athletic spaces. The architects also hired a "famous"
photographer to shoot the same space. He spent three days shooting with his
8x10 Sinar. I rented the Fuji and shot for one day. His photos were
beautiful, and arguably better than mine. But the limitations of the large
format (and perhaps his working style) meant that most of his images were
about the space, not about the use of the space. The Fuji allowed me to
quickly move to where the action was and capture the kids using their new
environment, while still affording me some of the view camera versatility
to show off the architecture and manipulate perspective distortion. The
result? Only his image of the exterior of the building ended up in the
architect's brochure, eight of my images filled up the balance.

Of course, he got paid for three days work for that one image, so maybe I
did make the wrong choice.

Kevin






Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 11:54:38 -0700
From: Mark Rabiner 
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: ultrawide brownie?

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:
> Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> > > A fisheye would not follow the formula they said.
> >
> > That's why I said it was also related to lense design...
>
> Fisheyes however are the only exception.

Fisheyes not included it seems there is a big gap in the photo world.

A Medium format ultrawide gap.

In 35mm photography a 16 or 15mm lens gets you a 97 or 100 degree angle of view
on the long dimension of the format. These lenses have long been out there for
us.

You can now get that same 100 degree angle in large format with the new lenses
they've got out now from Schneider and Rodenstock. 47mm for 104 degrees or 35mm
for even more.

That 35mm Rodenstock apo Grandagon however may not really cover 4x5 and may
really be optimized for 6x12 use so you could call that roll film.

But otherwise i cant find an 100 degree Lens angle of view long dimension lens
for medium format roll film photography!! Have I mist one?

You've got to go out an buy a smaller or larger camera.
A glitch? why would this be the case if it really is one I wonder?

Mark Rabiner
Portland, Oregon USA
http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/




Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 
From: Claudio Bottari xxbot@tin.it
To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Updated web site


 Bobm

I hope you feel well. I've updated my CLABO web site with Plaubel 69w Proshift
Superwide and Polaroid 600 SE, and lots of accessories of Mamiya
Press/Universal.

Best regards
Claudio

http://digilander.iol.it/clabo

[Ed. note: special thanks to Bert McClure for sharing these tips and observations!!!]
Date: 26 Mar 2001 
From: Bert MC-CLURE Bert.Mc-Clure@edf.fr
To: rmonagha rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: 6x12 on Brooks

Thanks for the note. A lot of credit must go to Ralph for pushing me in the
right direction.

I think the 47's attractiveness must come from the angle of view as much as
from the optics. My first contact with ultra-wide photography occurred when I
dumped all my Nikon gear on the counter in exchange for a Contarex full set.
The 2 backs, the metering system and the 21mm biogon's symmetrical design
almost touching the film plane were more than I could resist. That was before
the Contarex had become a collectable and I was doing an architectural guide to
Paris; my Nikon 20 bannana-ed seriously - so the 21 was a god-send. The 21mm
biogon's vertical format on 24x36 just covers most Paris fatades from across
the street - same vertical coverage as a shifted 24mmPC Nikon. No perceptible
deformation, high contrast who wouldn't be hooked? I've successfully used both
lenses (21mm biogon and 47mm SA) for archival photography of large plans I've
made in my work as an architect/city-planner.

To come back to the angle, I was not too surprised to be pleased with the
Brooks; the Brooks 47mm on 6x9 already corresponds to my 21 biogon on 24x36.
For me the included angle contains what I see - optics aside, there is no other
reason I can think of. To really perform, however, both lenses need to get
"inside" the composition; both are my standard lens for architecture and
markets, street scenes, store displays, etc... I've seen Ralph's bent
flag-poles so he's right about barrel distortion on his 47, but I also have
similar shots of interiors with a 47mm SA on which the verticals are dead
straight. My verticals were not, however, only a couple of feet away from the
lens. So who knows?


The 55mm ApoG I have is great and I've seen Ralph's really impressive 35mm
Apo-Grandagon shots but the 47 is the one I wouldn't consider parting with.

Other fronts :

I took a Hasselblad X-pan to Prague last year and loved the results, the
metering... but there are times when you want the foreground as well as the
width. I tried to find a reasonable 20-21 to retro-fit to the X-pan for 24x36
to no avail - the chamber is too restrictive. I also used a 16mm Hologon for a
year or so before selling on to a collector; the hologon is a great lens for
hand held interiors - in restaurants you get the plates, the participants, the
ceiling, everything - but it really is a limited-use lens. For the price
difference, I can make do with the 15mm Heliar and will try the 12mm when they
start to show up used.

On the MF side, I did use a SWC 38mm Biogon and a fabulous Rollei Wide (55mm)
at one time or another. They are both exceptional lenses that friends of mine
do wonders with. I had some nice architectural shots with both but soon had to
admit that I am not really a square format person but a double- or
triple-squarer. No-one is perfect.

I've been thinking about getting a 35mm mask made for the Brooks - 47mm on
24x112; quadruple-square - now there is an interesting format for landscapes
and gardens.

Thanks for the site - and the tips.

bert mcclure
fuzbat@tiscalinet.fr




From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren@bayarea.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Mamiya v Hassy

This sounds much like the differences I see when comparing negatives taken
with the Fuji GA645 compared to the Hassy 903SWC, Rolleiflex 3.5MX Tessar
and Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta ... The Fuji lens is extremely sharp and
contrasty, the Biogon on the Hassy is at least the equal in resolution and
sharpness but has a far nicer imaging character, the older Zeiss lenses
are not up to the same sharpness and resolution standard but still have a
superior imaging character.

Godfrey




From: sahamley@netscape.net (Steve Hamley)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: SWC or 40mm?
Date: 15 May 2002


Ken Rockwell has a comparison (sort of) the SWC to a Mamiya 7 with the
43mm lens.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/swc.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/mamiya/43.htm

I have the 43mm Mamiya and it is a hard act to follow. Ken claims it's
a copy of a 10 element Biogon, which it does appear to be.

Thanks!

Steve

> > I've never used either, but is there really a big difference between the swc
> > with the 38mm lens, and a 40mm lens on a regular camera? It would seem that
> > the 40mm being able to be used with a regular camera and view finder would
> > be a lot more convenient, for the cost of a lens. Is the 38mm biogon that
> > much better?





rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "roland.rashleigh-berry" roland.rashleigh-berry@ntlworld.com
Date: Fri Jun 07 2002

Though a box camera, rather than a folder, you might like to consider the
Envoy Wide Angle 6x9. This is an old British camera of very high quality
(especially if you get the one with the Compur shutter) and with the very
high quality 64mm Taylor, Taylor and Hobson lens. This was used for
photographing buildings for sale and so it has a wide angle to enable the
photographer to hopefully get in the whole building from the other side of
the usually narrow roads in England. It is quite flat, since the lens has
such a short focal length, and so it has nearly the convenience of a folder.
It is non-focussable by design but because of the wide angle, the depth of
field is sufficient for its purpose. It is no good for close-up shots,
though.

105mm is standard for 6x9 which equates to the true standard focal length of
43mm for the 35mm format. So this lens is the equivalent of about 28mm for
the 35mm format to give you an idea of how wide-angle it is. Not *very* wide
angle but wide.

"Skeenut" skeenut@yahoo.com wrote...
> Is there such an animal as a Wide Angle 120 Folder?  I almost don't care:
> 6x6, 6x4.5, 6x7 or 6x9, but would prefer 6x7...
> thanks again,
> Jeff




From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 10 Jul 2002 
Subject: ALPA: The emporor has no clothes


Alpa makes no lenses. Alpa makes no backs. Alpa ,makes no finders. Then what
does Alpa really make? They make a"spacer", that is a metal block that holds
the lens (that they don't make) on one end and the film holder (that they don't
make) on th eother end. They just make a block of metal that goes between the
the lens and  film holder. Oh they add some small shifts, too small to be
terribly useful but I guess marginally acceptable. Why does it cost so much?
That's because they have to buy the lenses and backs and resell them to you.
They make so little of the camera that  there is no econmy of scale. The
emporor has no clothes.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer






Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: ALPA: The emporor has no clothes.


ArtKramr wrote:

> Yes. I had the very first model.   I saw nothing in the constuction  remotely
> worth the money. Do you?

I guess that would be one of the three prototypes
http://www.alpa.ch/alpa/history/alpa12.html or perhaps an early 12 WA.
Regardless, I do question the amount of money on this, but I think this may
reflect the labour costs of a hand made item. Some sort of assembly line could
easily drop the price, if they had an interest in higher volume. Surprised the
Japanese or Russians have not copied this yet.


I once asked a machinist friend about this set-up. He said that if he knew the
specifications for lens mounting, he could make something similar for around $400
to $600 on a CNC. The viewfinder is another thing, but a 35 mm rangefinder
auxiliary might do the trick.

I own a fairly modern Ducati 900 SS, which has a similar situation of
construction. It is a 1992 model bought in 1991 when they were without an
assembly line. The models made after 1994 on the new assembly line showed many
cost savings, though the function was the same, but the details were not as
aesthetically pleasing. I think there is a similar situation at ALPA.


What intrigues me about the concept is the simplicity. I first noticed this
camera when it was awarded an industrial design award in the 2000 I.D. magazine
Annual. Viewfinder cameras are limited use devices, but so were the first Leica
offerings. In some ways, simplicity could aide creativity, though at the
current
cost, I may never find out. The other attraction is the lenses, though there
are
similar offerings for other cameras.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com




From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Alpa's improved SWC ;-) Re: Why has no one improved on the Blad?
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 


Robert Monaghan wrote:
> see zeiss biogon 38mm f/4.5 on shift version of Alpa 12 S/WA - stock item 1998
>http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/C46C012AF8F6E68D41256A6F00 2BAB0F
> and http://www.alpa.ch/alpa/alpa12.html for the shift version and with
> an interchangeable lens format too, so you can switch the biogon for APO
> 35mm or 45mm lens if you like too ;-)

I have had a look at the Alpa site quite recently, and could not discover
any mention of the 38 mm Biogon. True, there are still pictures of a Biogon
in shutter, but it is'n't mentioned anywhere. When did you last have a look?

There are all sorts of reviews on their site too, but again, none but one of them
mention the Biogon. No clues too as to why there is no more mention of the
Biogon.

So i went through my archive and the last mention i could find of the Alpa
*and* the Biogon was in an article looking back at the new products
introduced at the 1998 Photokina. It said that the people at Alpa were
particulalry proud to be able to offer the Biogon too. It was no more than a
press release, though.

A later review (based on actual use of the camera and lenses) in the same
year (1999) mentioned how even the slightest shift using the Biogon and the
small 44x66 mm format (remember the Alpa is a 6x9 cm camera!) already
results in very obvious vignetting.

I have not found any mention of the Biogon for the Alpa from a later date. ;-)

> But I/they agree with you, the APO grandagons make a better lens for
> shifting with lots more coverage; again, part of my argument that these
> would be better SWC/M (at least from the view of architecture/cityscape
> and travel users of SWC/M in many cases, due to utility of shift lens, yes?

Yes.

But i think it's confusing to link them (wide angles with enough coverage on
the Alpa) to the SWC, even in comparison: the only thing they have in common
is being wide angled.

So i would say they are (for some purposes) better than the SWC, not a
better SWC. ;-))




From: tkr@puffball.demon.co.uk (Tim Rylance)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Alpa's improved SWC ;-) Re: Why has no one improved on the Blad?
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002


"Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl writes:
>I have had a look at the Alpa site quite recently, and could not discover
>any mention of the 38 mm Biogon. True, there are still pictures of a Biogon
>in shutter, but it is'n't mentioned anywhere. When did you last have a look?

You can use www.archive.org to look at old versions of www.alpa.ch, for
instance
http://web.archive.org/web/19991118005410/www.alpa.ch/alpa/alpa12_tech.htm
lists the Biogon.

But it's no longer offered because the first batch of 50 sold out and the
Compur 0 shutter is no longer available:

  Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 
  Subject: [HUG] OT ALPA and CZ Biogon 4.5/38
  From: Andre Oldani aoldani@datacomm.ch
  To: hasselblad@kelvin.net

  Hi list

  I mailed the ALPA's Capaul & Weber today. They told me that their first
  batch of 50 Biogon is sold and they only have now one left for the company
  itself. They could reorder but want to check demand first. An additional big
  drawback to them is that Compur stopped making their size 0, 1 and 3. Now
  they discuss with Zeiss about one with a COPAL 0. Plus they say that the
  Schneider  Super-Angulon XL 5,6/38mm is now in full production for a
  fraction of the cost (cost of the lens only some 1800 USD instead of 4800).
  But they have to commit that the Schneider has to close down to f11 until
  reaching the MTF value the Biogon produces at f4.5!!!! Absolutely
  unbelievable!!!! They also report the results of Kornelius Fleischer from
  Zeiss that the Alpa/Biogon produces a resolution of over 100 line pairs per
  millimetre where the 903 does marvellous 60 lp/mm.

  I'll show up at their offices this or next week to have a look at their
  photo exhibition. I doubt being ever able to honour the technical
  possibilities of this wonder machine but it would be absolutely fantastic.
  OK, first I need to lift a bank... :-)

  Andre

and on 24th December 2001 Ursula Capaul Weber & Thomas Weber-Capaul (the owners
of ALPA) wrote in http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001pXK

  The ZEISS Biogon T* 4.5/38mm for the ALPA is sold out at the moment
  (some connoisseurs and experts have realized what this INTERCHANGEABLE
  lens in combination with the ALPA 12 can do for them...) and we doubt if
  ZEISS/we will make a second series (e.g. the production of the COMPUR 0
  shutter we have used for "our" Biogon has been stopped, etc.). But in ANY
  case and pretty soon we will offer at least one new lens with comparable
  characteristics (= wide angle and useable at fully open diaphragm).


There is no sign of the Biogon replacement on www.alpa.ch, but on 25th Dec 2001
(http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001pXK again) Thomas
Weber
wrote

  1) "... I am intrigued to know which wide angle lens (to replace the
  Zeiss Biogon) would be offered for use at wider apertures than possible
  with the large format lenses currently available?..."

  Sorry - it is too early to publish the detailed data. Thanks for your
  understanding and patience until Spring 2002!

  In some aspects the new lens will offer more than the Biogon (!!), in
  others it will not fully reach it (we are always talking about the "old"
  Biogon ONLY [= the Hasselblad 903SWC's lens - optically the ALPA-Biogon
  is/was EXACTLY the same = the same glasses but in another lens mount than
  the Hasselblad 903SWC's] and we are NOT talking about the "new" Biogon
  [the Hasselblad 905SWC's]). Of course we would like to have ALWAYS and
  in EVERY aspect the best material that can be imagined and made. But we
  have to accept that this is e.g. for cost reasons not always possible
  and (see also below) that it is not even always needed (in the sense of
  reasonable). Furthermore it should be realized that this coming lens is
  mainly thought to be used with the ALPA *HAND HELD* = it is our goal to
  reach HAND HELD about 80-100 lines per millimeter as it has been reached
  regularly e.g. by Mr Kornelius Fleischer (head of the strategic marketing
  at ZEISS' photo lens division) with an ALPA 12 and "our" ZEISS Biogon
  T* 4.5/38mm (25 ASA Agfa b/w film, 1/125s, f stop between 5.6 and 8
  [the Compur 0 shutter and it's diaphragm feature a click-stop in this
  position]). With the camera on the tripod he even reached close to 200
  lpm - THIS may be too much for the new lens. May be it's a good idea
  to compare these datas to what you can get elsewhere and/or to discuss
  this matter with a neutral expert - in any case we are very, very FAR
  away from the ordinary.


Kornelius Fleischer wrote in Dec 1999 that the ALPA+Biogon gives slightly
better resolution handheld than the SWC

  http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000hMf

  To add some recent experiences of mine with the Zeiss Biogon:

  I was comparing two cameras equipped with the Biogon 38, the SWC 903 and
  the Alpa. Standing on a high tower I shot a city with a soccer stadium
  half a kilometer away from the camera. Handheld. Under a microscope at 40x
  magnification I could easily count all the seats in that stadium. Between
  me and the stadium there seemed to be a thin bright horizontal line. Under
  the microscope I could see that this line was a fence. And all vertical
  bars could be counted in the transparency from the Alpa. I measured
  the width of such a bar in the transparency. It is 11 micrometers. So
  approximately 90 of them fit in a millimeter. Quite a good resolution
  in handheld photography. The resolution in the photo from the Alpa was
  slightly better. This may be because the Alpa4s shutter release operates
  smoother than the SWC4s. I will look further into it, do tripod based
  comparisons also, and keep you informed.

and also has a better (brighter) viewfinder

  Obviously many users of the SWC like the camera a lot but wish
  improvements of the viewfinder. I, too, use and like the SWC very
  much. And I have also some ideas on how to improve the viewfinder. When I
  did comparisons of SWC and Alpa recently, both cameras equipped with the
  Zeiss Biogon 38, I noticed how bright the Alpa viewfinder is. Same thing
  with the Hologon finder and the Contax G camera. I shall discuss this
  topic with colleagues from Hasselblad (they also follow the discussions
  on these forum to learn your viewpoints). Please give us sufficient
  time to come up with a markedly improved viewfinder; we may not be ready
  before christmas.

so it can be argued that the Alpa is in some ways a "better SWC".
It certainly isn't a tripod-only view camera, Urs Bernhard wrote in
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000bHJ on 7th Oct 1999

  The ALPA is the best camera I ever used. I use it for Reportage/Street
  photography. It is THE quality P+S camera. My ALPA is equiped with a Zeiss
  Biogon 4,5/38mm and a Linhof 70mm Filmback, loaded with TX. The Biogon is
  a superb lens, meeting the high precision of the swiss made ALPA Body. I
  use the "new ALPA-Format 44mmx66mm" which fits in the 8omm image circle
  of the lens and has the same ratio as 24x36mm. The 70mm filmback gives me
  60 exposures. I was never so fast, because the scale focusing makes it
  very easy. The camera is very handy and let you forget the extra pounds
  you have over p.e a LEICA. No other medium-format-camera with the same
  features is so handy and intuitivly easy to use. The ALPA is a marvellous
  travel camera too, because you need not more gimmicks and gadgets then
  Lens ,body and back to be well equiped. With a ground glass you have even
  a little view camera. It costs a bit more then other cameras, I know,
  but it is worth every dollar and you will have a superb and lasting tool.

--
Tim Rylance tkr@puffball.demon.co.uk




From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Alpa's improved SWC ;-) Re: Why has no one improved on the Blad?
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002


> But it's no longer offered because the first batch of 50 sold out and the
> Compur 0 shutter is no longer available:

I think the true reason why it is no longer available is because it
vignettes like hell when one would try to shift it a tiny bit, even when
limiting the Alpa's 6x9 cm format to the much smaller 44x66 mm format. Have
you tried it?

It was a mistake to include this lens in the Alpa line up. It's as simple as
that. And the people at Alpa know that.

The "shutter no longer available" story is devised to safe face, no more
(Compur shutters are indeed no longer made, but Prontor's are. They are the
same thing...)

And Zeiss will have no problem at all producing as many new Biogons as Alpa
would care to buy. So again, red herring time...

The "old" and "new" Biogon's are basically the same lens, only very minor
differences (yes, it has slightly less resolution in the center, but makes
up for that in the corners), so that too can not really be a reason why Alpa
stopped using the Biogon...


The story of Alpa and Zeiss lenses is a bit strange.

The first prototype they introduced had a 80 mm Zeiss/Hasselblad lens, which
stirred quite a bit of interest in the thing, because it seemed like this
thing was going to enable us to use our present Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses
(just like the Flexbody). The enthousiasm quickly evaporated when it became
clear that though the Alpa would use Hasselblad lenses, these needed to be
modified such that they could no longer be used on Hasselblad.

"Bang!" went the promise of not having to invest in all new lenses...

But Alpa insisted on associating themselves with Zeiss still, promising
indeed to provide a "better SWC".

The only thing that seemed to be better though was the resolution (strange
though, since the optics are 100% the same).

Any other promise (shifts!) could not be fullfilled. And so the Biogon was
dropped from the line in favor of the Schneider and Rodenstock lenses that
do allow to do what the Alpa was designed to do.




From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 
From: Jim Brick jbrick@elesys.net
Subject: [HUG] You heard it here first.

OK folks, there is a new camera available as of now. It is made right here
in Silicon Valley (actually Woodside which is 10 miles from the actual SV.)
It is called the:

BAHRAMI Z-1 SUPERWIDE SHIFT

This is a gorgeous camera that uses Hasselblad backs. It is supplied with a
Hasselblad ground glass and a RMfx finder. The GG back is the same back
that comes with the FlexBody including the image shift prisms. The film
wind mechanism is the same as the FlexBody as well. The front lens mount
has vertical shift of about 1 to 2 inches (best I can remember.) It has a
35/4.5 Rodenstock Grandagon in a focusing mount. It comes with a small
fitted Pelican case.


The camera is all metal, machined beautifully, and anodized black (maybe
black chrome?) It is simply gorgeous.

Keeble & Shuchat Photography is the only store that is handling them at
this moment. They have a demo in stock (the one I played with) and are
taking orders. They are hand made to order. Lead time is two weeks.

Summary. A 35/4.5 lens in a focusing/shift mount. Hasselblad backs. Think
of it as a Super Super wide with shift.

It is a little cheaper than a 905SWC. The 905SWC is $5399.95 and the
Bahrami is $4800.

This is a new camera. Just put on the shelf yesterday. I am sure that
different lenses will become available over time. Perhaps a tilt lens as well.


If you are interested... Keeble & Shuchat Photography, (650) 327-8511, ask
for Tim or Mary. Important... tell them I sent you.

FYI, I get nothing from this. I happen to think that Keeble & Shuchat is
one of the great remaining PRO photo suppliers. I've had an account with
them for the past 25 years and have never been disappointed with their
honesty and integrity. But as with anything, it is the people and I know
the really good folks from the so so folks. I will always recommend the
really good folks and you should make sure that you deal with them. This
Bahrami camera is, as I said, brand new. Tim at KSP worked with the
designer so he knows the camera cold. Mary knows it very well as well. Tim
has Monday off and Mary has Tuesday off.

:)

Jim




From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Graflex  RB Super D
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002


"Nick Zentena" zentena@hophead.dyndns.org wrote 
>   I've been reading the online manual for this on
> http://graflex.org. It's pretty clear that wider then normal lens are a no
> no. OTOH in the section on "Using the Graflex Camera" is a chart dealing
> with stopping motion. The chart  starts at a 4" lens [about 100mm I
> guess] So when they talk about no wide lens do they mean wider then 100mm or
> is the limit higher?
>    On a different issue. What's the simplest way to tell a 3x4 from a 4x5
> camera? [A speed graphic in this case] Assuming a film holder isn't
> available to measure what would you check? Assuming it's a 3x4 there is no
> reason the lens couldn't be used on a 4x5?
>
> Thanks
>
> Nick


  Graflex cameras along with most SLR cameras can't take
standard type wide angle lenses because they won't clear the
mirror. The shortest lens which can be used on a Graflex SLR
is somewhat longer than the "normal" focal length for the
format, i.e., the diagonal of the format. For 4x5 Graflex's
its around 170mm. The standard FL lenses supplied on 4x5
Graflex's is around 190mm.

  Wide angle lenses are possible but they must be of the
reversed telephoto type and such were not available during
the life of the Graflex. I am not sure a 4" lens would clear
the mirror of a 2-1/4 x 3-1/4 Graflex. This is the standard
FL for 2-1/4 x 3-1/4 Speed Graphics. These lenses are not
wide angle lenses and won't cover 4x5.

  I am not sure what you mean by identifying the size of a
Speed Graphic without a film holder. Just look at the ground
glass, its the size of the negative. For pictures of Speed
Graphics you can sometimes tell by the relative size of the
rangefinder to the body.

  On Anniversary Speed Graphics the 4x5 models have a slide
latch only at the top of the lens board, 3-1/4 x 4-1/4
models have slide latches top and bottom.

  The later Pacemaker cameras had two slide locks on all
sizes.




From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002
From: "Mehrdad Sadat" msadat@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: Slim Polarising Filters That Accept Lens Caps

the hoya ultra slims come with a lens cap

Regards, Mehrdad

  -----Original Message-----
  From: CyberSimian [mailto:CyberSimian@BTinternet.com]
  Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 
  To: Minolta Mailing List
  Subject: [Minolta] Slim Polarising Filters That Accept Lens Caps

  I am looking to find a circular polarising filter that has a slim mount AND
  which accepts a lens cap.  When it is one of "those" days, I will often
  leave the polarising filter on the camera all day, but I won't be taking
  pictures all day.  When I put the camera away, I want to be able to fit the
  lens cap WITHOUT having first to remove the polarising filter.  The filter
  needs to have a slim mount to avoid vignetting at the wider end of the
  24-105 zoom lens.

  Can anyone suggest a brand of polarising filter that has a slim mount and
  still accepts a lens cap (not necessarily a Minolta lens cap)?  Thanks.

  -- from Cy in the UK




From: "Dr.-Ing. A. Irmer" Quinon+NOSPAM+150@arcor.de
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: lens question
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002


Je wrote:

> Can enlargement lenses be used as wide angle lenses in large format
> photography?

Every enlargement lens can be used, but if it is usable as
a wide angle lens depends on the lens and its angle of view.
For example Rodenstocks Apo-Ronar has an angle of 46 degrees,
so no chance to use it as a wide angle lens!

But there are a lot of other high quality enlarging lenses out
there which can be used.

Take a look on my website (URL in the signature, still in
german, sorry!), the lenses are all more or less wide angle
lenses (and, by the way, they are for sale).

Regards
 A. Irmer

 Irmer's Verkaufsseite?
http://home.tiscalinet.ch/irmer/index.html#VergrReproObjektiv





Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 
From: Robert Feinman rdf@sunny.virtualdba.com
To: panorama list panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: Using Voightlander 12mm for panoramas

I just had a close look at the 12mm lens for the Voightlander Bessa.
Comparing it to my 35mm Noblex it appears that the horizontal field is
just about the same (120 degrees).
This leads to the interesting question as to whether this is a viable
alternative to a dedicated camera.

The pluses:
1. Rectilinear lens, no swing lens distortion.
2. BIgger vertical field of view, allows cropping after the fact.
3. Shutter speeds down to time exposures. My Noblex has longest of 1/30.
4. No "smiles" or "frowns" when camera is tilted, just trapazoids.

The minuses:
1. Negative size is 1/2 of Noblex once film is cropped to 1:3 size.
2. Lens has hotspot in center. Very cumbersome to use a center filter.
You need the 77mm lens adaptor and a 77mm center filter (expensive!) and
you lose about 2 stops.
3. Lens is only f5.6. Focus by guess.

Has anyone tried this for panoramas? How have you found the quality?
--
Robert D Feinman
robertdfeinman@netscape.net





Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 
From: MMagid3005@aol.com
To: rdf@sunny.virtualdba.com, panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: Using Voightlander 12mm for panoramas

I don't have either camera/lens, but another factor should be the fact that
subjects taken with the 12mm would appear to be much further away as compared
to the same subject taken with the Noblex.

Marty Magid




From nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 
From: "Mark_1968" mark_1968@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: wide angle lense

Mick,

I have the 24mm f/2.8 AIS and like the perspective very much.  My
next longer lens is a 35mm by the way.

Do you really need the f/2.0?  I do mostly landscapes so I'm fine
with f/2.8  Plus I've heard anecdotally that the f/2 is more prone
to flare and I find myself shooting into the sun quite often.

I have held both f/2.8 and f/2.0 lenses next to each other and they
are about the same size and weight and both take 52mm filters.
However the price is different :)

Mark




From: Vasu Ramanujam v.ramanujam@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: 17mm lens on single use disposable 35mm konica camera re
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002

Interesting!

I have several of the old Konica Film-In panorama disposables with the
17mm lens. That discontinued model seems to have reemerged as a full
frame disposable. Good move by Konica! This camera already has a small
following. I like to reload them with C-41 B&W.; In fact, I actually used
one to photograph the Taj Mahal and the picture even got published in
the Point & Shoot column of Petersen's Photographic (October 1998, p. 40.)

A Paris based photographer named Paul Grivas has made outstanding black
& white images in places like Sarajevo with this "cheap" camera. See for
yourself at http://www.moderna.org/projects/konica/index.html

As for light fall off, the edges do get noticeably blurry, but more
importantly you have to be very conscious of the possibility that your
own fingers will end up in the image. The angle of view is very large.
Camera hold is very critical. Center sharpness is excellent (purely on
my subjective basis, of course.) When possible, I try to have something
like tree branches at the edges of the frame so that the blurriness is
not noticeable and seems natural to the image. Small pieces of gel
filters can be stuck into the recessed lens housing for creative
effects! More creative power to you! The shutter can be modified to fire
permanently at B. Night time use possibilities exist, although I haven't
gone out and tried that! The camera does particularly well with close
subjects like stop signs, the grilles of yellow or red Ford Mustangs
with the mustang logo, or with massive objects like bridges, overpasses,
tall towers, and such - that can be photographed from close quarters at
unusual angles. A unique, entertaining, and educational piece of
equipment, this disposable. One that can produce surprisingly beautiful
and haunting images in b&w; in right hands such as Paul Grivas'. Highly
recommended for creative types and tinkerers alike.

There are instructions I can provide for modifying the panorama model
into a regular full frame 35 mm model. I plucked these off a website
some time ago. Just e-mail me for a link (if I can find it!) or provide 
a fax number (I do have a printout of the page). The old panorama model
has been discontinued, however, but ... if anyone badly wants to acquire
one, please contact me. I have an inventory of about 10 units with fresh
dated film in it and each one even comes with a working, cheap, plastic,
digital, sport-look watch with a blue Konica logo you can hardly see! I
also have an inventory of four or five previously used cameras that I
use for reloading and using as unmodified panoramics. I can maybe let go
of about 4 or 5 of the unused ones ... on a first come first served
basis - no charge, ...  but we'd both incur good karma if you would make
a $5 or more donation to a charity of your choice, so think about that
if you have qualms about accepting freebies from total strangers.


Vasu Ramanujam

Graphic wrote: 
>"Robert Monaghan" rmonagha@smu.edu wrote
>>Konica has a 17mm lens on a 35mm throwaway camera called the "Film-in
>>Superwide" using 800 iso centurion film; see Pop Photo Jan 2003 p. 42 for
>>details. Unfortunately, not released in USA yet. I'd be interested in
>>hearing from anyone who gets and tries one of these out ;-) grins bobm
>>
>>I'm interested in hacking one of these to see how much image circle the
>>17mm lens has, and how it falls off. Could be a poor man's superwide? ;-)
>>
>>grins bobm 
>Hi Robert:
>
>I am a very chagrined photographer---I should know better, but....
>
>..about 7 years ago I picked up a konica disposeable with the 17mm lens in
>question that was framed down to a "panoramic" format on standard length
>(36mm) 35 mm format.  Approximately 2 years ago I took the camera out of the
>freezer and still haven't finished the roll yet.
>
>When I get motivated to find it and have ithe film developed, I'll send you
>a scan of one of the frames (if it hasn't turned to dust in the mean time).
>
>What a bizarre thing for Konica to have done without giving a thought to
>giving this item the marketing push that they should have...seems like the
>gift shops at the U.S. capitol, Taj Mahal, etc. could sell a
>kazillion..especially the new full-frame version.....
>
>Wayne Catalano
>graphic99@mindspring.com 




From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: "New" Medium Format 36x72mm using zeiss biogon lens...
Date: 30 Jan 2003 


rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote
> see zeiss electronic camera lens news

http://www.zeiss.de/de/photo/home_e.nsf/Inhalt-FrameDHTML/4FDEACEDCB7D0AF541256A53003923AA

> brief note on the zeiss biogon and its use on the alpa series cameras...
>
> grins bobm


Bob, as we econmists often say, BFD.

More exactly, I shoot a 38/4.5 Biogon on a Century Graphic with a 2.25
x 3.25 (my calipers say 57.4 x 82.0) back. The lens is not from a
Hasselblad, doesn't have a field stop, and covers about 87 mm.
Practically speaking, one can use about 84 of the 87 mm circle, the
outer 1.5 mm are pretty dark even though they contain good detail.

If you do the Pythagorean formula arithmetic, you'll see that I get,
if I want, 36x77.  Or, if I want it, 24x81.  Anything no longer than
82 mm that fits in an 84 mm circle.  As I said, BFD.

I've been selling 38/4.5 Biogons like me that need, as mine did, to be
remounted on eBay, opening bid $300.  Even with the costs of
remounting and acquiring a Century or a thin Graflex XL and back, this
gives more capability than the Alpa at a slightly lower price.  I
don't have one up now, so am not really trolling for business here.
They've been moving poorly, sooner or later I'll take heart and put
another one up.

Cheers,

Dan





Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 
From: Rod Sage rsage@infi.net
To: panorama-l panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: RE: Konica 17mm, new Horizon & 6x24 swing lens

I remember using a Konica 17mm pan disposable 10-15 yrs ago, shortly after
the Kodak Stretch (24mm) came out. As I recall the lens was made from two
layers of plastic with different refraction indexes (not exactly 2
element). Found a picture of the original. Not sure what it has to do with
a Lomo.
http://topspeed_jmv.tripod.com/photos/17.html

If these were introduced in Europe last September they should be coming to
the States by now. Has anyone seen them? Too bad they aren't reloadable and
full frame (but then we couldn't mention it on this list, eh!).

Rod S




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: "New" Medium Format 36x72mm using zeiss biogon lens...
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003


"Willem-Jan Markerink" w.j.markerink@a1.nl wrote:
> John Stafford john@stafford.net wrote 
> >
> > It is all about the lens. First the Zeiss 38mm Biogon is wider and
> > second it has very little distortion. A remarkable lens, truly one of a
> > kind.
> >
>
> A 26mm Mamiya 645 lens on a 41.5 x 56mm frame seems wider to me....

The problem with the Mamiya 26mm lens is that it doesn't exist yet. If it
does get released (and there are some who think that the announcement was
just a marketing ploy), it's exceedingly unlikely to have acceptable
performance outside the area of the frame it's intended to cover: that of
the 36x36mm (or whatever) digital backs. And it will only be available in an
AF mount, so you'll need an AF body for it.


And there's no way that radical a retrofocus design will complete with the
Biogon even at its center.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" w.j.markerink@a1.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: "New" Medium Format 36x72mm using zeiss biogon lens...
Date: 9 Feb 2003


"David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com wrote
> "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl wrote:
>>
>> Shift or no shift is not the point (and that's the substance of Alpa's
>> folly). Why not 60x72 mm???
>
> I don't see what your problem is. The 36x72 mm frame fits exactly within
> the Biogon's 80mm image circle, just as the 56x56mm 6x6 format does. The
> 72mm width gives an angle of view unavailable in medium format. (Except
> for swing-lens and other special-purpose cameras.)

Bullshit, the recent 26mm for Mamiya 645 is much wider (a rough 17mm
equivalent for 35mm).

Also, 24x72mm would have been a much nicer ratio *and* much more economical.

--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
w.j.markerink@a1.nl
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]




From: john@stafford.net (J Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Enlarging limitations
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003


My turn, Hemi. Can you ID the lens I'm using in my latest LF camera?
This one: http://wind.winona.edu/~stafford/proto1

BTW, it specs out mathematically to F3.7, and is wider than 3" with the
shutter removed. Maybe this one has an honest aperture rating, including
optical loss. Civie lens max can be 1/4 stop on either side. The Canon .95
lens - sometimes I think it's really 1.1 hacked.




From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 12 Feb 2003 
Subject: Re: Enlarging limitations


>My turn, Hemi. Can you ID the lens I'm using in my latest LF camera?
>This one: http://wind.winona.edu/~stafford/proto1

Yes it is a Wild brand Wide Angle lens used for survey work for future
construction.  It is not used for aerial recon work.  Image size is 9x9 inch.
Would make one hell of a 8x10 camera but only for long range scenes.

Larry




From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: "New" Medium Format 36x72mm using zeiss biogon lens...
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003



"Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl wrote:
> Shift or no shift is not the point (and that's the substance of Alpa's
> folly). Why not 60x72 mm???

I don't see what your problem is. The 36x72 mm frame fits exactly within the
Biogon's 80mm image circle, just as the 56x56mm 6x6 format does. The 72mm
width gives an angle of view unavailable in medium format. (Except for
swing-lens and other special-purpose cameras.)

If I understand the camera correctly, it's just a back and viewfinder
combination. So you can use the Biogon with any other back you like.

The only problem is the price.

> Yet they still want to use the Zeiss Biogon, and use it in a way no other
> manufacturer can (which, and that was painfully obvious to everyone except
> the people at Alpa, you can't. The Biogon, quite simply, is the wrong lens).

Well, now they've found something to do with it that does give you something
no one else can.

> So they now invent yet another smaller format, and sell it as "panoramic".
> The field now is a bit wider than 6x6, so there appears to be a small gain
> (how about image properties in the "extended" field?).

The Biogon has excellent corner resolution and the frame fits exactly within
the Biogon's image circle.

> But that small gain
> is carelessly tossed away by shrinking the image until it is only 36 mm
> high. Why oh why?

Because that frame fits exactly within the Biogon's image circle.

> I think Alpa's obsession about the Biogon is plain silly. Why not just use
> it as the non-shift, no frills excellent MEDIUM FORMAT wide angle?

It looks as though you can, if you want. There are 6x6 and 645 backs for
that camera, I think. And there's also a panoramic format back as well now.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan




From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 64/65mm 6x9 cameras
Date: 27 Feb 2003 

john@stafford.net (J Stafford) wrote 
> danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm) wrote:
>
> > I shoot a 38/4.5 Biogon on a Century. It vignettes on 2.25 x 3.25,
> > the image circle is only 84 mm, [...]
>
> Dan, is the vignette a sharp cut-off, or gradual? Where does light
> fall-off occur? (I'm wondering if there's a mechanical stop that cuts off
> coverage.)

John, the lens really covers 87 mm, but from 42 mm out (on a radius)
illumination falls off rapidly. Illumination is pretty even out to 42
mm. Image quality is good, but harder and harder to see, from 42 mm
to 43.5. After that, nothing.

To get an idea of what it does, look at my last ad on eBay. The URL is
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category;=30077&item;=2913756338
That one is sold and for now I have no more.

My lens is not from an SWC or Alpa. Unlike 38 Biogons set up for
those cameras its front element protrudes well beyond the front
barrel. Can be set down only on its side. I haven't seen a 38 Biogon
in Alpa mount -- who has? -- but I believe the SWC and Alpa Biogons
have a very sharp cutoff at around 40 mm out, thanks to the front of
the barrel.

Hope this was clear. To be crass and commercial, I had a few and have
sold all, mainly on eBay. I may be able to get more, but what with
travel plans and time in shipping won't be able offer any until April,
if in fact I can get more. So if you're interesting in getting one to
be remounted, bug me around the end of March.

Cheers,

Dan




From: john@stafford.net (J Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 64/65mm 6x9 cameras
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 

danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm) wrote:

> [... we are talking about a 38mm Biogon at full coverage...]
> To get an idea of what it does, look at my last ad on eBay. The URL
> is http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category;=30077&item;=2913756338
> That one is sold and for now I have no more.

We should get together to put up some experimental camera pages. I am very
interested in that shutter setup.

> My lens is not from an SWC or Alpa. Unlike 38 Biogons set up for
> those cameras its front element protrudes well beyond the front
> barrel. [...]

But it _is_ a 38mm Biogon, right? Same optics, just different barrel?

Have you seen my 2x scale Biogon (76mm) on a 4x5? The optics look exactly
like the 38mm Biogon, but with 5" square coverage (trailing off like the
38mm, same proportions.) Same exceedingly low distortion, even coverage
(5"x5"). Awesome lens! (I believe it's an Aerial Mapping lens. It
satisfies the requisites - very low distorion, resolution measured
wide-open, all that.)




From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 64/65mm 6x9 cameras
Date: 27 Feb 2003 

john@stafford.net (J Stafford) wrote 
> danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm) wrote:
> 
>>snip
> But it _is_ a 38mm Biogon, right? Same optics, just different barrel?
>
> Have you seen my 2x scale Biogon (76mm) on a 4x5? The optics look exactly
> like the 38mm Biogon, but with 5" square coverage (trailing off like the
> 38mm, same proportions.) Same exceedingly low distortion, even coverage
> (5"x5"). Awesome lens! (I believe it's an Aerial Mapping lens. It
> satisfies the requisites - very low distorion, resolution measured
> wide-open, all that.)

Aaargh! Please go back to the listing and read the engraving on the
front of the lenses shown there. I just took mine, the one that's in
Copal 0, out. Its engraving reads "Carl Zeiss Nr 4998035 Biogon 1:4.5
f=38 mm" John, I'm not making this up. It contains bits of glass
identical to the ones Zeiss sold to Hasselblad, to Pacific Optical, to
General Scientific, and still sells to Hasselblad and Alpa. Yes, its
a very very nice lens.

Yes, I've seen your monster and read about your home brew guillotine
shutter. I thought you said the monster was much bigger than a real
75.4.5 Biogon. My Biogons' solenoid-actuated jobbies wouldn't do for
it, they're not big enough and anyway the timing circuits aren't
available.

Recently saw a 44/5 (not sure of the aperture) Super Aviogon. 150
degrees. No matter where you stand behind it the beady little exit
pupil stares at you. Another Bertele design. To my taste it trumps
Biogons and Biogon clones.

I'm not into experimental cameras so much as I am into extending what
can be done with my little Graphics. Latest madness involved having
Mr. Grimes put some ex-Agiflite TTH lenses on 2x3 Pacemaker boards.
Am waiting to see what the monster 12"/4 looks like, should get it
real soon now. The 4"/2 is a nice installation, but have to shoot
with it to see how usable. And there's a 6"/1.9 Dallmeyer in the
drawer pending a decision to try to use it and acquistion of more
money to pay for putting it on board.

Cheers,

Dan




From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 64/65mm 6x9 cameras
Date: 1 Mar 2003 

Bill Martin wcmartin@vnet.net wrote
> Ain't Graphics neat little rascals? In my opinion, one of the best buys
> on the MF market.
>
> Bill Martin

What do you mean, MF? 2x3 Graphics are on the cusp between MF and LF.

On the one hand, they make negatives the same sizes as cameras
generally regarded as MF. On the other, they have the stigmata of LF
cameras and larger Graphics (same design, blown up) are for-sure LF
cameras.

I think of 2x3 press and, yes, view cameras as the smallest LF
cameras. They can equally well be thought of as MF cameras with few
modern features.

Whatever category they fit best, they're great values and I'm glad I
got mine.

Cheers,

Dan




From: "Roland" roland@rashleigh-berry.fsnet.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: 64/65mm 6x9 cameras
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 

Could I have your assistance in building up a complete list of wide-angle
6x9 cameras? I mean with lens focal length of 65mm or shorter and
specifically 6x9 cameras.

Envoy Wide Angle (Dallmeyer or Taylor Hobson)
Fujica G690
Fujica GL690
Fuji GSW690 (various versions)
Mamiya Super 23





From: john@stafford.net (J Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 64/65mm 6x9 cameras
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 

"Roland" roland@rashleigh-berry.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> Could I have your assistance in building up a complete list of wide-angle
> 6x9 cameras? I mean with lens focal length of 65mm or shorter and
> specifically 6x9 cameras.

Plaubel Veriwide and Brooks Veriwide. I'm sure you mean a Nominal 6x9.




Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 
From: Bill Martin wcmartin@vnet.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 64/65mm 6x9 cameras

Crown or Century 6x9 Graphics. I've used 58mm, don't think you can
really go much shorter.
...




From: "Roland" roland@rashleigh-berry.fsnet.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 64/65mm 6x9 cameras
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 

"Roland" roland@rashleigh-berry.fsnet.co.uk wrote
> Could I have your assistance in building up a complete list of wide-angle
> 6x9 cameras? I mean with lens focal length of 65mm or shorter and
> specifically 6x9 cameras.
>
> Envoy Wide Angle (Dallmeyer or Taylor Hobson)
> Fujica G690
> Fujica GL690
> Fuji GSW690 (various versions)
> Mamiya Super 23

Horseman (Schneider) SW6x9 with rise, fall and shift, usuable with a variety
of lenses (35mm, 45mm, 55mm, 65mm, 75mm and 90mm). I bet I'm not going to
like the price...
http://www.schneideroptics.com/cameras/horseman/612_&_6x9_cameras/sw6x9_professional/
Thought not. And that is just for the body
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/product/229255/HOSW69P/REG/465
With 65mm lens it comes to $4385. Tra, la, la .....




From: Robert Feinman [rdf@sunny.virtualdba.com] 
Sent: Wed 3/19/2003 
To: panorama list 
Subject: Totally unscientific 12mm Heliar test results


I took a series of shots of a resolution chart that I have
to see what's causing the blurry corners with my Heliar 12mm
pictures.
First test limitations:
1. You can't focus the lens since there is no rangefinder.
(I suppose you could insert a ground glass in the back..)
So I measured 12" to the chart and set the lens to the 1 foot mark.
2. I used 400 speed b&w; film (too grainy)
3. I scanned using my 1600 dpi scanner (resolution is too low).

Observations:
1. There is no real distortion in the corners. Straight lines
are to all intents straight.
2. The best resolution in the center seems to be wide open at f5.6.
3. The best resolution in the corner might also be f5.6 or perhaps
f8. (These were determined by looking at the negs with a loupe).
4. Under these conditions the resolution in the center (with the
limitations listed above) is about 56 lpm and the corners about 40 lpm.
Expect better results with finer grained film (but not much better).
5. Keep big, close objects away from the edges of the frame if you
don't want funny-looking images!

There is no point in my posting any of the test images since the
scanned version is not representative..

--
Robert D Feinman




Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003
From: Robert Feinman robertdfeinman@netscape.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: OT: Ultra-wide angle experiences

I've been experimenting with the 12mm Heliar lately. It covers about 112
degrees horizontally on 35mm and offers an interesting alternative to
wide formats or panoramic cameras.
One of the issues is the quite noticeable light falloff in the corners.
I've put up a couple of tips on how to deal with this which might be of
interest to others using wide angle lenses (regardless of film size).
In addition there is a comparison to a swing lens Noblex.
Look under the tips section on my web site..

--
Robert D Feinman
robertdfeinman@netscape.net
Landscapes, Cityscapes, Panoramas and Photoshop Tips
http://robertdfeinman.com





From manual SLR mailing list:
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 
From: Gerry Young gerry@ghyoung.co.uk
Subject: RE: Tokina 17/3,5



Paulo Moreira wrote: {snip}
> Hi list!
> I am very tempted to buy a second hand 17/3,5 Tokina in Y/C mount.
> Trouble is, I don't know anything about this lens and I would like to
> hear any comments from people who have used it



I have had one in Nikon mount for a good few years. Its a good lens, a
bit soft at full aperture but excellent at f/8. Don't use it beyond 8
or 11 or difraction sets in. I use it for architectural interiors and
occasional landscape stuff.

When I bought it I was able to compare it to a Tamron 17mm. The Tamron
was a little sharper at full aperture but no different at f/8. The
Tamron had some distortion (barrel as I remember it) so the Tokina was
better for me. 

There is no equivalent Sigma, but my son has a PK fit Sigma 24mm, and I
used to have a similar one in Nikon AF, they are excellent lenses only a
little behind the Nikon one.


Gerry Young




From manual SLR mailing list:
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 
From: Douglas Green dougjgreen@att.net
Subject: RE: Tokina 17/3,5


This Tokina is MUCH better. I have it in Nikon mount, and have
previously owned in in Minolta mount. IMHO, it's THE BEST value in a
super-wide SLR lens for anything less than intense pro useage.

BTW, the Vivitar is the same lens, and was made for them by Tokina.

(my Minolta lens was actually the Vivitar version). It's mechanically
and optically identical to the Tokina branded one (except the mount,
obviously).
...




To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
From: john@stafford.net
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Re: Pacific Optical Again
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 

Michael Hendrickson wrote:

> I think I have one of the same model of lens! It's sitting in a box
> right now. After considering putting an old Volkswagen motor on it and
> driving it around, I decided to save it for the project camera that I
> will build or modify around it....

:) Well, I drive a '58 Volkwagen. Unfortunately, it's rather
underpowered to schlep that big old lens around.

> Anyway, when I was considering buying it, I called Pacific Optical and
> talked with a gentleman there (whose name, unfortunately, I did not
> write down) who told me that the lens has a design such that stuff stays
> rectilinear -- I assume he meant that one won't get the fish-eye effect
> with it.

This lens is more properly called a "Mapping" lens. It was used in a
couple different shutter configurations for military survey work, and in
civilian applications but at low altitudes - closer to aerial mapping
altitudes. Mapping lenses are subject to two specific criteria - VERY
low distortion and they are all rated at full-aperture (regardless of
whether they have a diaphram.) This lens is a 200 scale Biogon 38mm and
has almost ZERO distorion (as the Biogon is famous for) and resolves
40mm line-par per millimeter.

> I procured an old aerial shutter which it seems might fit into the
> innards of this lens housing

Be careful. There are some shutters for the 6" lens in circulation. If
you try to push it down the shutter slot it will bang on the front and
rear lenses. It's too wide. I cover all this in an article online that I
can post when I get home.

> [...] The shutter is not
> complete, in that a timing mechanism which was probably a separate unit
> is not with the shutter. But it has aperture control

There is no aperture control for the 3" lens. Instead, there are two
guillotine shutters that work in opposition. This lens (if we are
talking of the same one) has no diaphram.

> Any info you have on how to configure all this would be vastly
> appreciated!

Will post pictures and text later this evening.

PS: This is really a 3" lens, not 75mm. :) And the aperture is closer to
F3.5 if you use civilian (commercial) metrics. I suspect the government
contract might have convinced the makers to include the T factor.

Very Best,
John Stafford




From: "Gene Johnson" genej2@cox.net
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Re: Pacific Optical Again
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 

John,

My lens was for the KS-87B. It is 3" FL and the front element is something
like 4-1/2" in dia. My housing is aluminum though. Maybe that's where the
weight difference is. By the way< I have some resolution specs from a Recon
Optical brochure. It lists 40 lpmm for PlusX and 60 for PanX. Would love to
see your prototypes.

Gene





Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 
From: Gerald Newland gnewland@ucalgary.ca
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] 4x5 Plans


Dear Camera Makers,

Does anyone have plans for rosewood and brass 4 x 5 camera in the style of
those made by Louis Gandolfi and sons (UK)? In the absence of plans, a set
of detailed images would be of great interest.

A few years ago, I made a metal 4 x 5 " camera, with helical focusing mount
and fitted with a Schneider 47mm Super Angulon which almost covers the 4 x 5
format. It has been one of the most useful cameras I have ever had for
technical and pictorial photography.

Regards

Gerald Newlands




From: p2macgahan@compuserve.com (P. MacGahan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Silvestri SLV questions
Date: 7 Apr 2003 

Simon sno@arm.nospam.com wrote 
> Does anyone have experience of using a Silvestri SLV?
> I've just picked up a used one from my local dealer and
> would welcome any advice on making the most of it. It
> came with a 47mm Schneider Super Angulon which I'm hoping
> will cover 6x9 and give me some shift to play with. Will
> I need a centre-filter with this lens, or is the vignetting
> not significant?
>
> I'm hoping this can replace my 5x4 for architectural work
> where I only ever use rising front movements.
>
> Simon.

There is a bit of movement possible with a 47 SA on 6x9 format. It also
depends which 47mm you have. I have a multicoated f:5.6. Over some of
the coverage I really don't need a center filter. If I want to go
further, first I need the center filter and then the quality of the image starts to
deteriorate rapidly. On the other hand, if you have a new XL, you may want
a CF. The XL has about the same evenness over the part that the older model
also covers, but it covers much more. Outside of the coverage of the older
lens, it drops off a lot. Really, it depends on how much movement you need.

If you want more details look at the MTFs and the illumination plots at
www.schneideroptic.com




From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What Wide lenses for 4x5 Crown Graphic ?
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 

"jdunn" jddunn@plano.net wrote
> I want to shoot landscapes with a 4x5 crown. The newer formulations
> are much larger & deeper than older ones. I'm worried what
> lengths will work on my 4x5 crown. Looking at B&H; new listings
> I see the Nikon 65,75 & 90 mm as well as the Rodenstock
> Grandaggon 34,45,65,75 & 90
>
> Any advice on which ones will work on a old Crown ?
> I would plan on buying 2 lenses maybe a 90 and something
> wider.

I have a Schneider Super Angulon 65mm, f/8 which I use on
a couple of Speed Graphics. It works fine and I think even a
shorter lens could be used. The rear cell of this lens
nearly touches the ground glass when the front standard is
all the way back.

The opening in the front of the Speed/Crown is limited. It
will take the lens above, but may not take some larger WA
lenses. For those you can unscrew the rear cell and screw it
back on from the inside when the lens board is mounted on
the camera.

The main limitation of the Speed/Crown is that movements
with a WA are just about impossible. Of course, they are
very limited anyway.

Because the front standard is sitting on the part of the
rail inside the camera box it can handle pretty heavy
lenses.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com




From: "konabear" maurert@ameritech.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What Wide lenses for 4x5 Crown Graphic ?
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 

Depends on what you mean by useful... I frequently use the Schneider 90 F8
(in the 00 shutter) on my Speed graphic. I believe the Crown, not having
the shutter mechanism is a little thinner, so the 90 should work with it as
well. Fortunately the Speed and Crown 4x5s have rails inside the camera
that are controllable from the focusing mechanism. The bed does drop away
more than enough for a 90mm...

I even use my 65mm F8 (in 00 shutter) The bed drops enough to get out of
the way here too.

That said, using what movements the Crown has becomes difficult with the
90mm and near impossible with the 65mm. If you're using the lenses straight
up, then that's not really an issue. A Speed or Crown can therefore "shoot"
with a 65mm to a 480mm tele.

Todd
...




Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad on a budget?

"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

> "Tom Morley" tmorley@bmtc.mindspring.com wrote:
> >  "David J. Littleboy"
> > >
> > > Hassy doesn't make the lenses I want at any price, and wants an arm and a
> > > leg for lenses I don't want.
> > >
> > Well, the 38 mm Biogon is nice, but (with body) not partiularly cheep
>
> The lens is nice, but it's 80mm image circle is wasted on 6x6. If it were
> used to cover a 40x69mm frame, it would make a great wide angle lens (same
> horizontal coverage as a 20mm lens in 35mm, but nearly twice the
> magnification). Now that's a camera I could get excited about.

With ALPA doing a 44x66mm, would it be as easy as just masking a back? I know
the ALPA functions differently than the Hasselblad, but it seems to be an easy
to modify camera. Unfortunately, these are far from cheap.

I have followed one ALPA users experiences for a while. It looks like he
managed to get an exhibition, and some nice imagery. He uses a few different
lenses on his ALPA, including the early Biogon, though he reports awaiting a
newer version as replacement. Anyway, some nice images at:

http://www.alpavision.ch/elements/index.html

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com




From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 50/6.3 for Mamiya vs a modern 20 mm
Date: 30 Jun 2003

Jeff Sumner jdos2@mindspring.com wrote
> Skatto@inflessibile.com (Skatto) wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > I'd like to know if the 50/6.3 for Mamiya press at its best f-stop is
> > sharper than a modern 20 mm for 135mm (e.g. Nikon) at its best f-stop
> > with the same films and the same size final print (30x40 cm). Is there
> > a big difference in sharpness ? Any comments would be appreciated.
> > Thanks for answering.
> >
> > Sorry for my English.
> >
> > Ciao
> > Skatto
>
> It's an interesting comparison- a Medium Format lens to a 135 format
> lens.
>
> There are many things to consider when asking about the comparison- the
> resolution of the Mamiya wide is undoubtably lower, as it is a Biogon
> copy, and has been designed to cover the 6x9 back. The difference is in
> the film magnification. Light falloff on a 6x9 is there, but I've not
> found it objectionable.
>
{snip}

Everyone here says the 50/6.3 Mamiya is a Biogon copy. Can't be, and
for two reasons. Real Biogons are nearly symmetrical, the Mamiya
isn't. Real Biogons are f/4.5 and sharp wide open, the Mamiya isn't.
This is NOT to say the Mamiya isn't a very very good lens, just that
it isn't a close copy of Zeiss' Biogon.

As for resolution, Chris Perez reports (see
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html) that the Hasselblad
38/4.5 Biogon he tested resolved very well at all apertures, was best
around f/5.6 - f/8. Phenomenal is the word, better than published
tests for comparable lenses for 135. Yes, I know that Chris' test
procedures may differ significantly from, e.g., those of the Modern
Photography that was. I have one, not from a 'blad. It covers 84 mm
with good illumination, so can just barely be used on 6x9.

NONE of this should be construed as an attack on the Mamiya lens. It
is on my wish list.

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: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 

"Frank Pittel" fwp@warlock.deepthought.com wrote 
> J Stafford john@stafford.net 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.
>
> That's the way I learned it. I also learned that the same kind of thing
> applies to wide angle.
> --
> fwp@deepthought.com

Telephoto lenses are lenses where the second principle
point, where the image appears to come from, is displaced in
space so its further away from the focal plane (film) than
it would be for a "normal" lens. The difference in back
focus, or the minimum distance the lens is from the film for
infinity focus, between a telephoto and "normal" lens is
sometimes called the telephoto factor.

Wide angle is a somewhat less definite idea. Wide angle
usually means a lens with a focal length less than the
diagonal of the format. Some standard lenses can cover
enough so that a shorter than "normal" (meaning a focal
length equal to the diagonal of the format) lens can cover
the film. However, usually the lens is of a design
especially computed to cover the larger circle. Some
standard lenses can be made so that they have wider than the
usual coverage. For instance, Tessars can be made to cover
up to about 75 degrees, but they are not really ideal for
this.

Wide angle lenses, as a generic type should be
diferentiated from reverse telephoto lenses, sometimes
called retrofocus lenses. These are just what they sound
like, the same principle that is used in a telephoto lens is
reversed so that, for a given focal length, the lens can be
further away from the film. This is useful when designing
lenses for use with single lens reflex cameras where the
minimum distance between the back of the lens and the film
is limited by the mirror box. For this application even a
"normal" focal length lens is often somewhat retrofocus.
Retrofocus lenses have a disadvantage in that they are
completely unsymmetrical, so are harder to correct than a
standard type lens. They have some advantages, for instance,
the fall off of light with angle of coverage is less for a
retrofocus than a standard lens.

Symmetrical or nearly symmetrical lenses are automatically
at least partly correctd for three abberations: geometrical
distortion, lateral color (chromatic difference of
magnification) and coma. Coma is a particularly ugly
aberration, a sort of tear drop shaped smearing of image
points away from the center. Unsymmetrical lenses, including
both telephoto and reversed telephoto lenses, must be
corrected for these aberrations by the introduction of
additional elements and surfaces making them typically more
complicated and difficult to make than a symmetrical lens
would be.

Typically, lenses called "wide field" cover up to around
80 degrees, or perhaps 15 to 20 degrees more than most
standard design lenses. Wide angle lens typically cover 90
degrees or more. However this is mearly a convention of use,
there is no real definition.

Some lenses can be either standard or wide angle lenses
depending on application. Many lenses used for large-format
photography cover upwards of 75 degrees, making them at
least wide field lenses. Most of the current Plasmat type
lenses have at least this much coverage (Schneider Symmar or
Rodenstock Sironar). The Goerz Dagor has a maximum coverage
of around 87 degrees when stopped down to f/45. This allows
these lenses to be used as wide angle as well as standard
lenses (or long focus lenses for that matter). Lenses
intended for use as wide angle lenses can have better
correction at the margins than a wide coverage standard lens
or can cover the angle at a larger f/stop.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com





[Ed. note:  thanks to Dan for sharing this update and correction!]
From: Fromm, Daniel W (Dan), ALABS [danielwfromm@att.com] 
Sent: Mon 7/28/2003 
To: rmonagha@engr.smu.edu
Subject: please fix

Hi, Bob. Was just looking at your page http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/wide.html, which contains references 
towards the top to "WW II vintage" 75/4.5 Biogons. 

Are you sure? To the best of my knowledge, all of those lenses are younger than the oldest 38/4.5s, 
most are Vietnam War vintage and younger. I mean, the USAAF wasn't buying lenses from Zeiss 
during WW II, not even through Pacific Optical. And, come to think of it, I don't think there even 
was a Pacific Optical in those days.

Cheers,

Dan
[Ed. note: I read an article (in Shutterbug back in 1970s?) which
highlighted some of these problems.





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





Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 
From: Larry & Pat Nieland lnieland@bellsouth.net
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Subject: [Cameramakers] Re:Moskva 5 lens tilting
Reply-To: cameramakers@rmp.opusis.com

cameramakers-request@rosebud.opusis.com wrote:
> I am trying to figure out a way to tighten/compress some loose rivets in a
> folder camera (Moskva 5 that's otherwise in good shape) without removing the
> lens. bellows etc.. They allow the lens and shutter to tilt unintentionally!
>
> Needlenose pliers not strong enough.
>
> I am going to try a miniature c-clamp, but it's aluminum and migh tflex too
> much.
>
> If that doesn't work, I'll bug the machinist at work to see if he can make
> me a steel one.
>
> Anyone else solve this problem?
>
> Thanks
>
> Murray


Hi: Good luck on "fixing" your Moskva 5 ! The lens tilting is a very common
occurance with these cameras. The Tessar type lenses are excellent though,
but the 3 blade shutters are questionable at best. I took the lens off mine,
remounted in a Prontor 0 shutter and put it on a cheap Ikonta I found. I
took the bellows and front off the excellent die cast body and mounted a
Mamiya 65mm Press lens in focusing mount to make a 6X9 wide angle camera -
turned out very nice! That is how I "fixed" my Moskva 5.

Regards,

LARRY




From: Peter Evans [peter@despammed.com] 
Sent: Thu 11/13/2003  
To: Lenses@topica.com  
Subject: [LENSES] 12mm competition

Irrelevant to anything posted here, or to rangefinders, but still
perhaps of interest: a month ago, Sigma announced a 12mm-24mm SLR zoom.
It's f5.6 or (in favorable circumstances) f4.5 and weighs 615g. Details
at http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/news/12_24.html





From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm) 
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format 
Subject: Re: MF wide camera DIY... is it possible? 
Date: 4 Oct 2003

Kamox nospamkamox@go.com wrote 
> I'd like to shoot in 6x9 with a wide lens. 
> I mean something very simple, like a box with a lens mount on the front, a film back holder on the 
> rear and a uncoupled viewfinder. Like Horseman, Cambo Wide or Alpa, but much more cheap... ($2000 
> range - that's my budget) 
> Do you know if someone sells DIY kits for building a wide camera? 
> Am I dreaming? 
> 
> Kamox. 

The shortest rectilinear lens that covers 2.25" x 3.25" is, afaik, the 
35/? ApoGrandagon. $1k, used. There are longer lenses, if 35 is too 
wide, that cost less. 

This lens is known to make infinity on a Century Graphic. 2x3 Crown 
with graflok probably more expensive. $100 - 200 used. 
Roll holder to suit. Toyo/Horseman/Wista more highly regarded and 
expensive than Graflex, Adapt-A-Roll 620 works too and costs less. 
VF? Not sure, think Cosina (= Voightlander). 
Put lens on board. 

This rig will be useful with other lenses,easily fits inside your 
budget. Buying is easier than building and will leave no sawdust on 
the floor. 

Go. Spend. Shoot. Don't look back. 

Cheers, 
Dan 




From: nospam@nospam.xxx (jjs)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Making the jump
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003

"David J. Littleboy"
 wrote:

> [...]
> (Then there's my other rant: the 38mm Biogon, with it's 80mm diameter image
> circle will cover a 69mm by 40mm frame for a width equal to 20mm in 35mm,
> albeit with a slightly worse case of being "spatially challenged in the
> short direction". Still, that's a frame size I'd much prefer to the SWC's.
> Alpa makes a camera that does exactly that, but none of the bankrupt banks
> in my town have enough money to buy one, so even robbing a bank isn't an
> option.)

Let's make one: a Brooks Veriwide body and a Biogon 38mm. FWIW and BTW
(and LSMFT, PHD, MBA) there's an article on Hasselblad's .de site that
claims the early 38mm resolved 100lp/mm and the new one resolves 200lp/mm.
I don't believe it, but "I want to believe." 

(Bio Gon - from the Greek means, roughly, Life Giving, or Live (vital) Angle)




From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wide Angle film illumination
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 

...
I have both a 90mm and a 65mm f/8 Super-Angulon, both are
mostly used on an old Speed Graphic. The image is not
wonderfully bright but is quite adequate for composing and
focusing. Niether of these lenses seems to have enough focus
shift to require focusing when stopped down. Modern lenses
are undoubtedly better but old chrome finish S-As are quite
respectible lenses and not too expensive used.

The No.00 Compur shutter many of these are mounted in is
actually quite reliable but many shutter techs don't like
working on them. This is essentially the same shutter used
in f/3.5 Rolleiflex's so there really shound not be any
problem with them.

One shortcoming is that this small shutter does not have a
"Time" setting so you will need a locking cable release, not
exactly a big deal.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com




From: "Nicholas O. Lindannolindan@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wide Angle film illumination
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 

"Rafe B." rafe.bustin@verizon.net wrote
> [90 mm view camera lens] Used is OK, as long as
> I can find one in good condition. I'm thinking
> $700 tops, more or less.

I would buy used. Lenses don't wear out and so as long
as it hasn't seen abuse and the shutter isn't lubricated
with 60 year old oil, a used lens will be as good as
a new one.

I am partial to the f4/f4.5 wide angles - I find it much
easier to see and focus with the wider f-stop.

The Nikkor SW's seem to be the most reasonably priced at
for $1000 new and about $700 used.

The f8 series of wide angles are two stops dimmer, but
they do cost less: $699 new and about $500 used for a
Nikkor SW.

Rodenstock Grandagons and Schneider Super Angulons are
two other choices but tend to be more expensive than the
Nikkors.

A budget choice is a Schneider Angulon (not the super)
90mm f6.8. The lens doesn't have a lot of movement
for 4x5, but it does sell for around $150 to $200. The
Compur shutter these lenses usually come in is a PITA as
it doesn't have a lever to open the shutter so one is
forced to: set the shutter to 'B'; cock the shutter;
open the shutter with a cable release; lock the cable
release; _finally_ frame and focus; release the lock;
set the shutter speed; cock the shutter again;
and take the picture.

Look through keh.com and ebay for an idea of used prices.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.




From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wide Angle film illumination
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 

"Rafe B." rafe.bustin@verizon.net wrote ...
> For 90 mm, what about a used Grandagon N f/6.8 for $700?

You should be able to find a better price on a used 90mm f6.8 Grandagon-N.
Also, look for the 90mm f6.8 Caltar II-N. It's the exact same lens, but
usually sells for less (both new and used).

> I see you like the Nikon for its larger image circle and lighter
> weight. How would you compare the optics of these two?

They are comparable. I used the Nikkor for years and was always very
satisfied with the quality. I'm currently using a relatively new 90mm f6.8
Caltar (current style with green stripe around the front). I haven't had is
very long, but so far no complaints (other than the weight).

> What would it cost to get a f/5.6 lens with comparable
> coverage and quality?

New - the cheapest new "fast" 90mm is the 90mm f4.5 Nikkor SW at $1125.
Used, typically $200 - $300 more (comparing apples to apples in terms of
lens age, condition, brand and coatings) for a fast 90 compared to a slower
lens. Also, 90mm f5.6 and f4.5 lenses take bigger filters which will also
add a little cost every time you buy a filter.

> Coming from MF and 35 mm, the idea of having an f/8
> lens as my mainstay is just a bit scary.

Why is it scary? The maximum aperture is only for focusing and composing.
You said you were shooting landscapes. Unless you're planning on doing
something unconventional, you'll typically be shooting at f16 - f32. Sure,
all else being equal, it's nice to have a faster lens for focusing in low
light. But, not all things are equal. That faster lens will cost more,
weight more and take bigger filters. In most cases, the faster 90s also
have more coverage. The 90mm f8 SW is the exception. It has the largest
image circle of any of the slow 90s. Of the fast 90s, only the 90mm f5.6
Super Angulon has substantially more coverage.

Just a little reassurance on your original concern about center filters.
This is a highly subjective issue. Some people insist that they are
absolutely necessary with a 90mm lens on 4x5, while others insist that they
don't need them with a 65mm lens. It all depends on personal preference,
what materials you are using and your intended final output. For me
personally, I have never found a center filter necessary with any 90mm lens
(on 4x5). However, with anything shorter, I almost always use a center
filter. Without it, I have found the fall-off very noticeable (too much for
my needs) with lenses in the 75mm - 80mm range. I shoot color landscapes
with high contrast, high saturation transparency films. And while there are
ways to compensate for the fall-off in the printing process, I often submit
original transparencies for publication and want them to look as good as
possible on the lightbox. So, I use a center filter. Of course, your
mileage may vary. That's just my opinion based on my needs and my
experience.

Kerry




From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wide Angle film illumination
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 

Geez, rather than be deliberately obtuse, I'll try to answer Rafe's simple
question in a simple and straight forward manner. The answer has nothing to
do with camera movements or personal preferences. It's basic optics.

Rafe,

The reason ultra wide lenses on large format cameras exhibit more dramatic
fall-off than comparable ultra wide lenses on smaller formats is due to the
basic design differences. In order to mechanically clear the mirror in 35mm
SLRs, all wide and ultra wide (basically anything less than 40mm in focal
length) SLR lenses are of retrofocus design. In general, large format wide
angle lenses are not retrofocus designs (the only exceptions I'm aware of
were the 75mm and 90mm f6.3 Komura SW lenses made during the 1970s). There
are trade-offs to both designs. Retrofocus designs are more prone to
distortion, but have substantially less fall-off. Non-retrofocus (simple)
designs have much less inherent distortion, but suffer from objectionable
fall-off. The wider you get, the greater the fall-off. In order to provide
better correction for distortion, retrofocus designs are usually more
complex (have more elements).

So:

35mm (and Medium Format) SLR wide angles = retrofocus = much less fall-off

Large Format Wide Angles = simple (non-retrofocus) = fall-off in the cos^3
or cos^4 range.

Incidentally, in 35mm and medium format rangefinder cameras, there is no
mirror to clear. So, no need for retrofocus wide angle lenses. So, lenses
like the 15mm Hologon, the 21mm Super Angulon and the 43mm for the Mamiya 7
are simple wide angle designs (non-retrofocus) that exhibit fall-off similar
to their large format counterparts, and likewise, benefit from the use of a
center filter.

Hope that helps clear up all the confusion.

Kerry
...





From: "graphic99@mindspring.com" graphic99@mindspring.com
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003
Subject: [Cameramakers] RE: messages # 2 and #9 in (High Speed BTL shutter ) Cameramakers digest, Vol 1 #832 - 10 msgs

I think that what Shane Peel miagunya@bigpond.com was really asking was
whether the front and rear elements of the Schneider 38mm Super Angulon XL
Lens could be mated to the "Super Graphic" (1/1000sec top speed) shutter as
supplied on the "Super Graphic" camera (circa approximately 1958-1968) by
Graflex. Does anyone have the specs on the sizes of the 38mm lens and the
Graflex shutter?

IMPORTANT NOTE: Has Shane checked the specs for 38mm Super-Angulon lens for
maximum field coverage? I have a feeling that it may have been designed to
cover 6x6cm instead of 6cmx9cm, since the 47mm S-A seems to have been the
lens of choice for the 6x9's like the Grafles XL-SW.




Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] High Speed Shutter
To: cameramakers@rosebud.opusis.com
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 
From: lmichael@visi.com (Lars Michael)

G'day Shane,

unless you purchased the lens with separate front and
rear elements, I'm thinking your Super Angulon XL 38mm
lens (made by Schneider btw) would come with a Copal #0
shutter already (mounted between the front and rear
lens elements).

Copal shutters let you set the aperture and shutter
speed, and being a leaf shutter, sync the flash at
any speed. So you shouldn't need a separate shutter.

Whether your Copal shutter supports a shutter speed of
1/1000 sec or not, that's a different question of
which I don't know the answer.

Lars





From: stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiay 7 43mm- was Camera suggestions?
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 

Bill Hilton wrote:
> What I *thought* we were 'discussing' was Stacey's insistence that the Mamiya
> 43 mm has to have a center filter.

?? Actually it was your claim that a retro focus lens is going to have
more light fall off than a non-retrofocus (which is the exact opposite of
what is true) that made me coment in this thread. You somehow took that
coment about retrofocus vs non-retrofocus lens design personally?

There are some tricks that will reduce this fall off but retro focus
lenses by optical design laws will have less than non-retro focus lenses.
BTW all LF lenses are non-retro focus and the distance from the film plane
isn't what is involved here, it's the angle of view. The wider the angle of
view, the more fall off there is and it's why when a lens is shifted this
becomes worse.

> I doubt I ever said, as Stacey claims,
> that my "lens had NONE". For sure I don't see the need for a center filter.

And neither do many LF users that use lenses that also have 1-1.5 stops of
light fall off. Doesn't mean it isn't there or that a retro focus one would
be worse as you claimed. I don't use a center filter on my 90mm SA that has
about this same amount of light fall off and schneider =does= make a center
filter for this lens. The fact Mamiya doesn't make center filters just
means they don't make center filters, not that there is no light fall off.

What you claimed was that in every situation there is no light fall off
visible which just doesn't seem possible given there it 1-1.5 stops of fall
off with this lens as per mamiya's publication. Stopping down doesn't seem
to reduce this either and I'd be shocked if it would on a lens this high in
quality.

> Someone named Hogg said the Mamiya Forum says this lens has light fall off at
> the corners. No problem with that, but can anyone provide a link to
> something official from Mamiya that says a center filter is either
> required or
> recommended for this lens?

http://www.rockgarden.net/download/M7-43-50-illumination.jpg

Looks like 1 to 1.5 stops to me by their own publication.

I wasn't saying anyone HAD to use a center filter (or that this lens was in
any way poor qualiy etc) but if there is 1 to 1.5 stops of fall off as
mamiya says, seems there is enough fall off that a center filter would
correct it. Whether or not the user wants/needs to correct this is
subjective. 

Again my =whole= point was non-retrofocus lenses have more light fall off
than retro focus lenses (reread where I entered this thread), LF lenses are
non-retrofocus designs like a mamiya 7's hence my reposting of some LF lens
info that applies here. Non-retro focus lenses will have less distortion
and ussually are sharper as well so it's worth the trade off.


> I own four wide angles right now, Canon EF 24 mm f/2.8, Canon 17-35 mm
> f/2.8 L,
> Pentax 35 mm for 645 and the Mamiya 43 mm for the 6x7. There's no doubt
> to me the Mamiya produces better wide angle images than the other three.


I don't doubt that either. Doesn't mean that retro focus lenses have more
light falloff and THAT is what I questioned when you started insulting me.
My 65mm fuji lens produces better images than any other wide lens I have
but it also has more light fall off than the retrofocus designs do.

The fact Nikon doesn't make a center filter for their 65mm LF lens doesn't
magicaly make it free of fall off. Just means schneider =does= have a
filter designed to correct this fall off that any 65mm lens on that format
would have.

Since you kill file people you don't agree with I suppose you won't see any
of this information. Ignorance is bliss?!
--
Stacey




From: bhilton665@aol.comedy (Bill Hilton)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 31 Oct 2003 
Subject: Re: Mamiay 7 43mm- was Camera suggestions?

>>"stacey" fotocord@yahoo.com wrote 
>> Nope, not going to believe it just because you say you can't see
>> it. Bill claimed his lens has NONE, yet mamiya published
>> information that says it does. Who should I believe, Bill or
>> the people who designed the lens?


>From: "TenKMan" Fred@Fred.com
>Bill, as I have seen his work and read his explanations but then again,
>I am very pragmatic. If I can't see it, the I don't worry about it.

I've tried to take the high road and ignore these posts by kill-filing people
like Stacey (I only see what others have posted), but this thread doesn't want
to die.

To clear this up a bit, I know there is some light fall-off in ANY lens, that's
not news. The best lens (optically) I own is a Canon 500 f/4 IS L with
near-perfect MTF graphs but there's still a teensy bit of drop at the film edge
wide open. But who cares since you can't see it on film or in prints?

What I *thought* we were 'discussing' was Stacey's insistence that the Mamiya
43 mm has to have a center filter. This implies a large, even light-fall off
in the lens. As I said to the original poster I use this lens often and for
sure I don't see the need for such a filter. As I also said, buy the lens and
if you feel you need one go for it. I doubt I ever said, as Stacey claims,
that my "lens had NONE". For sure I don't see the need for a center filter.

Someone named Hogg said the Mamiya Forum says this lens has light fall off at
the corners. No problem with that, but can anyone provide a link to something
official from Mamiya that says a center filter is either required or
recommended for this lens? If you can provide such a link from Mamiya I'll
apologize to everyone I've argued with and even let Stacey out of the killfile
(but still on probation).

While you're searching for this official link here's a quote from the Mamiya
data sheet that ships with the 43 mm lens.

{quote}
"The Ultra-Wide angle 43 mm f4.5 lens is nearly a symmetrical design. As an
advantage of Mamiya's skillful design technique:

1) Lens distortion is reduced virtually to zero at the corners with -0.04%.
2) Lateral color abberation is completely eliminated
3) Light fall-off or vignetting toward the corners of the picture is greatly
reduced.

Another feature of this remarkable lens is its extremely crisp and sharp image
over the entire focusing range -- evan at maximum aperture."
{end quote .. pg 18 of "Interchangeable Lens" manual}

Allowing for the normal marketing puffery, this is a long way from recommending
a center filter, wouldn't you say? In case someone missed the key phrase I'll
repeat it ... "Light fall-off or vignetting toward the corners of the picture
is greatly reduced."

I own four wide angles right now, Canon EF 24 mm f/2.8, Canon 17-35 mm f/2.8 L,
Pentax 35 mm for 645 and the Mamiya 43 mm for the 6x7. There's no doubt to me
the Mamiya produces better wide angle images than the other three. 

>Bill, as I have seen his work

Thanks for backing me up Fred, we just posted some pics from the Colorado aspen
trip which you might enjoy (or maybe not ...). Will post the link on the
nature NG eventually, or email me if you want an early look.

Bill




From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Get a life people : Was: Mamiay 7 43mm- was Camera suggestions?
Date: 1 Nov 2003 

nospam@nospam.xxx (jjs) wrote 
> Yes. 3" for 4x5. It's an oversize Biogon design with a disproportionally
> large rear element (4.5") compared to, for example, the 38mm Biogon and it
> sits disproportionally close to the film, too. It is a no-compromise,
> drop-dead great lens even at F4.5. (When I did the measurements and math,
> it was a bit faster than F4, but the T rating is closer to 4.5.)
>
> No fall-off, but no movements except rise and fall, either. Typical
> fall-off will occur around 6.5"

I've analyzed literally hundreds of Biogon type lenses, and all of
them have more than one stop of falloff by the time you get to 45
degrees semi-field angle. Having a large element near the image plane
wouldn't help much unless it had positive power, which would take it
out of the Biogon category. I'm always prepared for new information,
however, and would be curious to know more about the lens you are
discussing.

One thing to remember is that ordinary human vision is very poor in
detecting falloff in a single negative or print so long as the falloff
is fairly steady. In fact, burning in the edges is often desirable
even when a wide angle lens was used. On the other hand if you put
images side-by-side as in a video projection array or a stitched image
the effects of falloff suddenly become much more dramatic.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com




From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Get a life people : Was: Mamiay 7 43mm- was Camera suggestions?
Date: 30 Oct 2003 

stacey fotocord@yahoo.com wrote 
> My point wasn't to bash this lens but to refute the coment that a
> non-retrofocus lens somehow magically has less/no light fall off. There are
> design parameters that can lessen it but whether it is retrofocus or not
> isn't what causes it.

Your earlier point that a retrofocus design has much less falloff is
completely correct. In fact, if you make the lens telecentric and
take care that the exit pupil doesn't get distorted as you move off
axis then you can eliminate falloff completely. Symmetrical
wide-angle lenses like the biogon types do have inherent falloff
because the chief ray in image space has a large obliquity. The
widely spaced outer negative elements help mitigate this somewhat by
enlarging the exit pupil for off-axis image points, but you still wind
up with at least cos^3(theta) falloff. Wide angle lenses with
positive outer elements such as the Topogon or Hypergon are much
worse, with falloff of approximately cos^5(theta).

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com




From: Jean-David Beyer jdbeyer@exit109.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 90mm for travel and backpacking
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 

Tom Ferguson wrote:
> I'm shopping for a small lightweight 90mm for use on a 4x5. I'm
> considering the Angulon F6.8 (non super), the Geronar F8 (hard to
> find), Wollensal/Optar F6.8 (I think they are the same), and the
> Wollensak Series IIIa EX.W.A. 3 1/2 inch. Realising that there is a
> great variation in samples of old lenses, have I listed them in quality
> order (best to worst)??
>
> I have a nice modern 90mm with lots of movement. It is great for studio
> and in town use, but too big for these uses. If you aren't willing to
> carry a lens it doesn't take good pics!
>
> Any other thoughts?

Here is another approach. I should have thought of it before, because it
is what I normally carry. I am not sure what I do is actually
backpacking, since I carry only a water bottle and a sandwich or cookies
and rain poncho. But I also have a Tamrac camera bag that converts into
a backpack. Seems no longer available. Fred Picker (Zone VI) used to
sell an identical one.

In there, in addition to the usual stuff, are the lenses:

A Schneider SuperAngulon 90mm f/8 (probably fails your weight test)

A Wisner Convertable Plasmat Set. This consists of 5 cells that can be
used individually or, more usually, in mix and match pairs to give a
wide variety of focal lengths from 152mm to 450 mm. Each cell by itself
is f/13, so they are small and lightweight. In pairs, the aperture comes
out bigger. The biggest comes out to f/9 (the combination of two 250mm
cells). I do not know what the weight of these comes out to, but it must
be less than even a very few Symmar XL lenses.

--
Jean-David Beyer 




From: mkirwan@nospampacbell.net (Mike)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 90mm for travel and backpacking
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 

I went through the same thought process as you. I ended up with the
90mm [f6.]8 Angulon and have been pleased with the results. My hiking kit
consists of a Wista 45DX the lenses are all "lightweight" and
include a 150mm Rodenstock Sironar and the Fuji A 240mm. Two step up
adaptors and a few 52mm filters and my Kodak Readyloads and I am off
for a long weekend.

I too have some large glass but that stays at home when I am trekking
for a few days.

- Mike

 Tom Ferguson tomf2468@pipeline.com wrote:
>I'm shopping for a small lightweight 90mm for use on a 4x5. I'm
>considering the Angulon F6.8 (non super), the Geronar F8 (hard to
>find), Wollensal/Optar F6.8 (I think they are the same), and the
>Wollensak Series IIIa EX.W.A. 3 1/2 inch. Realising that there is a
>great variation in samples of old lenses, have I listed them in quality
>order (best to worst)??
>
>I have a nice modern 90mm with lots of movement. It is great for studio
>and in town use, but too big for these uses. If you aren't willing to
>carry a lens it doesn't take good pics!
>
>Any other thoughts?




From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 90mm for travel and backpacking
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 

From: "Tom Ferguson" tomf2468@pipeline.com
>the Geronar F8 (hard to find)

The 90mm f8 Geronar WA is available on the used market. They show up
regulary on eBay and used equipment dealers like Midwest Photo Exchange and
KEH.

Like the Congo WA and the WF Ektar, it is a wide field Gauss design that
covers about 80 - 85 degrees. Like the Congo, it has the advantages of
being multicoated and in the modern Copal shutter. It also has the added
advantage of being made by Rodenstock, a world class lens manufacturer. So,
quality control should not be an issue. That said, it isn't nearly as
compact or light as the other lenses you mentioned. Where the others are
typically on No. 0 size shutters, the Geronar WA is in a special Copal No. 1
shutter (it's a No. 1 shutter, but requires the same size mounting hole as a
Copal No. 3). And while it is slightly more compact than the 90mm Biogon
derivatives (Super Angulon, Grandagon-N, Nikkor SW, Fujinon SW), it isn't
much lighter. I bought one of these several years ago with the goal of
replacing my 90mm Nikkor SW for backpacking. It ended up weiging only an
ounce less, and had far less coverage than the Nikkor. For the difference
of only an ounce, it didn't seem worthwhile to have two 90mm lenses. So, I
sold it and kept the Nikkor. As I mentioned in my previous post, I ended up
with a 90mm Congo WA that I use for backpacking (it weighs about 8 oz. les
than the Nikkor and is significantly more compact).

Kerry




From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 90mm for travel and backpacking
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 

"AArDvarK" noway@yourprob.com wrote:
> There is also Osaka lenses from
> Bromwell marketing. Their 90mm F/1:6.3 costs
> less at $425.xx. They don't show pictures and
> the specs are not listed for this specific lens, you
> would have to call or email them. These might
> be more readily available in the U.S.
> http://www.bromwellmarketing.com/

Good catch by Alex. The Osaka lenses sold by Bromwell are actually made by
Congo and have identical specs. I bought my 90mm Congo from Badger Graphics
several years ago when the dollar was much stronger and the exchange rate
more favorable. At that time, Bromwell did not offer the little 90mm Osaka
WA. Ted Bromwell is a great guy, and as his price is lower than buying
directly from Congo, I think that would be the way to go. I don't know the
current warranty details on the Osaka lenses from Bromwell. It's best to
get that information straight from the source. Give Bromwell a call
at:(412) 321-4118 for details. Also, be sure to ask if the 90mm Osaka is
multicoated. It isn't specifically mentioned on the Bromwell web site, but
since it most likley is (like the Congo).

Kerry




From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" largeformat@thalmann.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 90mm for travel and backpacking
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 
...
Tom,

You might also consider a 90mm Congo WA or a 100mm WF Ektar. These are both
Gauss wide field designs (4 element in 4 groups). They cover about 85
degrees. The Congo is in current production and available new. It is
multicoated and in a current style black Copal shutter. The WF Ektar has
been out of production for over 40 years. It is single coated, and in a
Supermatic shutter. Ironically, even though Congo has had 50 years to catch
up, their quality control isn't up to Kodak standards.

If you go with an Angulon, beware that quality also varied over the years.
The 90mm Angulon was made for about 40 years. The oldest samples are
pre-WWII and uncoated. The latest samples were made in the early 1970s and
came in Copal shutters. After testing several 90mm Angulons, I would
recommend either looking for a Linhof select model, or a later (mid-1960s to
early 1970s) "generic" sample. Schneider's quality control steadily
improved over the years. I recommend avoiding early, uncoated samples.

I went through this exact same search several years ago. Selecting the best
compact wide angle lens was the original goal of the lens testing I
performed with Chris Perez. You can review the results of our tests at:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

You might also want to check out the lightweight lenses section of my web
site at:

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/wide.htm

Kerry




From: "AArDvarK" noway@yourprob.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 90mm for travel and backpacking
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 

...other thoughts:

As far as what I know ... Schneider 90 6.8 will
cover 4x5 but zero movements. Optar is a 3
element design and more than likely the same,
made for 6x9cm. Raptar is a 4 element design,
better. I will say I believe Congo might be the
only company making a genuinly compact
90mm F/1:6.3 with an image circle of 6.88
inches (175mm), for decent movements. I could
be wrong, maybe Rodenstock, Nikkor and fujinon
make them, but it's what I know. $516.00 only
from Congo:
http://www.cosmonet.org/congo/index_e.html
you could do a web search for who is selling
a used one. There is also Osaka lenses from
Bromwell marketing. Their 90mm F/1:6.3 costs
less at $425.xx. They don't show pictures and
the specs are not listed for this specific lens, you
would have to call or email them. These might
be more readily available in the U.S.
http://www.bromwellmarketing.com/

hope this helps,
Alex

"Tom Ferguson" tomf2468@pipeline.com wrote
> I'm shopping for a small lightweight 90mm for use on a 4x5. I'm
> considering the Angulon F6.8 (non super), the Geronar F8 (hard to
> find), Wollensal/Optar F6.8 (I think they are the same), and the
> Wollensak Series IIIa EX.W.A. 3 1/2 inch. Realising that there is a
> great variation in samples of old lenses, have I listed them in quality
> order (best to worst)??
>
> I have a nice modern 90mm with lots of movement. It is great for studio
> and in town use, but too big for these uses. If you aren't willing to
> carry a lens it doesn't take good pics!
>
> Any other thoughts?





From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wide Angle film illumination
Date: 14 Jan 2004 

"Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote 
> "Rafe B." rafe.bustin@verizon.net wrote ...
> > "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > > The theoretical fall off of a lens of standard design is
> > >cos^4 theta where theta is the angle of the image point from
> > >the axis. Some lenses have a little more than this. Some
> > >designs use what is called a "tilting entrance pupil" to
> > >eliminate one factor giving approximately cos^3 theta. The
> > >only way to further reduce the fall off is to use barral
> > >distortion as in a fish-eye lens.
> > > The usual way of correcting the fall off is by the use of
> > >a kind of mask called a center filter. This is a neutral
> > >filter which tapers in density from center to edge at the
> > >right rate for a particular lens. They are not quite generic
> > >although a center filter for one lens may work for another
> > >of the same focal length and front diameter.
> > > Fall off is not affected by the stop once you get past the
> > >point where there is mechanical vignetting, usually about
> > >two stops down from maximum opening.
> > > Whether the effect is noticable or not depends on the
> > >scene and to some extent on the film.
> > > Fall off can be compensated for in printing, provided its
> > >not too great and provided the overall exposure has been
> > >calculated to give sufficient exposure to the margins of the
> > >image to prevent its being underexposed.
> > > Fall off can be seen even in only moderately wide angle
> > >images, but, since the eye expects the edges of a picture to
> > >be slightly darker than the center, its often not
> > >objectionable.
> > > For a 90degree coverage lens (theta = 45 degrees) the edge
> > >illumination is 0.25 of the center so the margins of the
> > >picture are down a full two stops from the center. Its easy
> > >to figure the fall off using a hand calculator or the
> > >calculator built into most computer operating systems.
> >
> > Call me confused. I have 35 mm primes and zooms
> > that go down to 24 and 28 mm respectively. I've not
> > noticed the light falloff in these, even on chromes.
> >
> > Now as I understand it, 24 mm would be 90 mm
> > or so for 4x5,so it seems to me the view angle isn't
> > quite enough to explain the light falloff all by itself.
> >
> > I'm still confused. Seems bizarre that in LF one first
> > needs to put up with a seriously expensive f/8 wide
> > angle (equiv. to 24 mm on a Nikon,) and then have to
> > add an expensive center filter that's going to turn it
> > into an f/16.
> >
> > rafe b.
> > http://www.terrapinphoto.com
>
> I can't explain your results. I have a 24mm Nikor for my
> Nikon F and find it has quite noticable fall off even in
> B&W.; This is a good lens with a tilting entrance pupil so
> the fall off is less than the cos^4 theta, but its still
> noticable. I don't know what the fall-off of this lens is
> compared to a Super-Angulon or Rodenstock Grandagon. Both of
> those also have tilting entrance pupils but are symmetrical
> (or nearly so) lenses. The Nikon lens is a retrofocus so it
> _might_ have somewhat less fall off. I suspect the
> difference, if there is one, is not significant, but can't
> say for certain. Because the inverse square law applying to
> the image from the lens to the film is less for a retrofocus
> lens than for a standard lens they have somewhat less fall
> off. This is because the image appears to be coming from
> further away then for a "normal" lens of the same FL so the
> difference in distance between the center and corner of the
> image, hense the square law loss, is less.
> ---
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk@ix.netcom.com


Just an added note: in certain extreme reversed telephoto designs its
actually possible to have a brighter image in the corners than in the
center. I've seen this happen both with fisheyes and with completely
distortionless systems. Not your average lenses perhaps, but
nevertheless real systems that get designed and built. With enough
chief ray bending and pupil aberrations just about anything is
possible!

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com





From: Bob Salomon bob_salomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Wide Angle Filters vs. Normal Ones.. Advantages/Disadvantages?
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 

moe_632@yahoo.com (Moe) wrote:

> Hello, does any one know the disadvantages of using wide filters
> instead of regular filters (I'm trying to get a polarizer and a UV
> filter for my 50mm lens, to be also used with the 18-55mm digital
> rebel kit zoom - both happen to share the same thread size: 58mm). Can
> I stack filters on top of each other with "wide filters" or will I
> lost this capability to regular ones?
> Also any recommendations? I'm thinking of getting the "B+W" ones so as
> not to give my self any "equipment-related" excuses when the photos
> turn out bad :-)
> Thanks for your thoughts..
>
> Moe

A wide angle filter is larger in diameter in the front then the rear of
the filter.

Some people believe that thin filters are wide angle filters. However
they are not. They may work on wider angle lenses then "standard'
filters but the still extend the length of the lens so vignetting is
still possible. Especially with stacked filters. Slim filters are made 2
ways, in the case of Heliopan they only make slim UV, color, and B&W;
filters. All have a front thread for stacking filters, adding a lens
hood or a snap-on cap. However Heliopan offers a choice of standard or
slim circular polarizers as their slim polarizers do not have front
threads. In the case of B+W slim filters there are no front threads.

The good news is that you should not stack a UV and a polarizer as the
polarizer will also cut UV. You might want to stack a Skylight filter
with other types as the Skylight is a warming filter. The UV does not
warm.

You also have to be careful with extreme wide angle shots with a
polarizer as the sky has areas that are polarized. When you have a wide
expanse of sky that you use a polarizer on you can get banding from the
areas that are already polarized.




From: ralph fuerbringer [rof@mac.com] 
Sent: Mon 3/1/2004 
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au 
Subject: Re: Widepan price

simple: a few decades ago i imported some photographic equipment to
sell in the usa. the price at the factory was c. 1/4 the list price
for the items to be sold here. that allows for up to 40% discount to
dealers on large orders. shipping and import duty, advertising, etc. 
now i just make a 612 camera here that sells direct to photographers,
the Vistashift w/35,45,55mm a\Apo-gGrandagons. comparisons showing how
this rectilinear ultra wide compares to the Noblex swinglens on the
same scene can be see at http://homepage.mac.com/rof 
Ralph

 Brian Walton wrote:
> How can the Widepan price be 852Euro in China and 2876Euro in
> London?
>
> Brian




From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Wollensak 3" F:1.9 fast aperture Oscillo Raptar
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 

"Shawn H" shawn90067@yahoo.com wrote
> I am looking for an wide angle lens (equivalent to 20mm in 35mm format) in
> 4x5. I see this lens show up in ebay now and then and am wondering if
> it [a Wollensak 3" f1.9 Oscillo-Raptar] is worth considering.

It covers 3x4" (Polaroid pack film) at roughly 1:1.

The best you can get out of it is (maybe) a not-very-good normal lens for
6x6cm. OTOH: it _is_ an f1.9 which is very fast for MLF -- maybe a 6x7
back on a Graphic would be a good application.

As has been said before: There are _NO_ cheap wide angle lenses for
large format photography.

The cheapest one can do is a 90mm f6.8 Angulon for around $200.

A 75mm LF lens in ~f4.5 will set you back $500+.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan





End of Page