dan_fromm2

Don't forget Cambridge Midtown on 43d St. behind the Grace Building. I used to drop Kodachrome off for processing there when I worked for WR Grace. Shady isn't the word for Cambridge's mail order business as it was. Out-and-out crooked.

Cambridge is still around. http://www.cambridgeworld.com/

Hmm. I've had a 35-70/3.3-4.5, bought new, for ages. As it aged, it was no longer parfocal. That is, when focused at 70 mm and zoomed out to 35mm, it lost focus. Not good.

Andrew, thanks for your lengthy and informative reply. I take it that you shot your MP-4 Tominons at distance. Since they were offered as macro lenses to be used at magnifications > 1:1, that's how I tried them out, except for the 135. Using them at distance never occurred to me. Of course, I was shooting film then and was most interested in using them on 2x3, which the shorter (< 105 mm) ones won't cover at distance. And I never had a 105. I have heaps of adapters (SKGrimes, rafcamera wasn't around back then) for mounting them and other macro lenses on Nikon bellows, LTM extension tubes and #1 shutters. ATB, Dan

Both are Tessar types. The MP-4 lens is not in a shutter, it is mounted on a shutter. That is, the glasses are in a barrel that has a diaphragm and the barrel screws into the front of a #1. All MP-4 lenses are like that. I'm not sure which camera your second lens, in a #0, came from. My first thought was Polaroid CU-5 Gel Cam, but as far as I know all of the lenses for the CU-5 except the 17 -- I've had one -- are in #1 press (self-cocking) shutters. The 17, like the MP-4 17, screws into the front of a #1. My second thought is that your second lens came from a non-Polaroid Gel Cam oscilloscope camera. The Shackman 7000 comes to mind, but 'scope cameras' lenses are usually in press shutters, not cock-and-shoot like yours. I've had all of the MP-4 lenses except the 105/4.5. My reaction to them is that although there are better lenses than the short ones (17, 35 and 50), good examples of the short ones are all good enough to use. I've had bad examples of the 35 and 50. The 75 is mediocre and all of the 135s I've had were awful. I've had a couple of 127/4.7 Tominon CU-5 lenses. Both very good. However, based on my relatively small sample of 35 and 50 mm MP-4 lenses, Tominon's quality control was poor. Conclusion, which I'm sure you've reached, use the 105 in #0 and be happy. Don't use the MP-4 lens but save its shutter for front mounting other lenses in barrel. Adapters will probably be required. For curiosity, which 2x3 view camera do you have?

According to the manual, lf the space between the focusing screen and the film holder seat cannot be expanded to at least 2.5 cm (1"), the Sinar Rollfilm Holder Zoom 2 cannot be used. I b'lieve that y'r Vario roll holder and the Zoom 2 have the same dimensions.

Apparently not directly relevant but apropos: I have monocular and binocular right angle viewers for my 4x5 Cambo and a Horseman monocular viewer for any 2x3/6x9 camera with a Graflok/Internatonal back. I've used the Horseman viewer on a Cambo SC-1 and several 2x3 Graphics. The Cambo viewers are fine, just fine. The Horseman viewer is dim so I stopped trying to use it years ago. If a fresnel is needed it would be needed with short focal length lenses to reduce the central hot spot that they produce on the GG. This is true whether the GG is viewed under a dark cloth, with an in-line viewer (I didn't mention that I have a Cambo in-line viewer), or with a right angle viewer.

Top-of-the-line Kershaw cameras used TTH shutters and lenses.

That's all well and good, but the effect depends on the separation and the lens. The OP's lens shows classic rings of fire. Item, my 58/5.6 Grandagon, whose separations manifest as silver spots near the center of the lens and rings of fire at the periphery. No effect. The lens is very usable. Item, my 25-15 wide angle attachment for a 25/1.4 Cine Ektar, whose separations show as strong broad Newton's rings. In footage shot with it, the rings are clearly visible. The attachment is unusable. I have another 25-15 with no separations. Footage shot with it doesn't have visible rings. When in doubt, test.

Eddy, go back to LFPF. I posted a complete solution to your problem there, to which you took offense. You should read my response, which might soothe your hurt feelings. So you'll know, I have several Cambo SCs, also several 90 mm lenses including a thoroughly broken 90/8 SA that I bought for its shutter. They all focus to infinity on my 4x5er. So, for that matter, does my 35/4.5 ApoGrandagon. The 35 doesn't cover 4x5.

Hmm. I b'lieve that the OP posted the same question on LFPF. Only there he admitted that he didn't try to focus on the GG, he use a Canon DSLR hung, via an adapter, on the Cambo's rear standard. This adds considerable extension. Good answers, Glenn and AJG, but not really to the OP's question.

Hmm. The OP asked which of two well-know pocketable folders was best. Best implies at least three choices -- when comparing two items, better is the word to use -- so I'll toss two more hats into the ring. 2x3 Graphics are folding cameras. I nominate the 2x3 Pacemaker Speed Graphic and 2x3 Crown Graphic/Century Graphic as joint title-holders even though pockets that will hold either are rare. The Speed is preferable for slightly longer lenses and for lenses in barrel. The Crown/Century (functionally equivalent) are much better for short lenses. All are multi-format (accept 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 and 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 [6x9 in metric]) roll holders. All accept a wide variety of lenses. And all are very robust.

As has already been pointed out, OP, your question is too vague to answer. What's best depends on what you want to sell (how many? how valuable?) and how much time you have. My late friend Charlie Barringer, who had quite a large collection of rare and valuable photographic equipment, discussed how best to dispose of it with me and many others after he was given his death sentence (esophageal cancer). The consensus was that he had too much to sell quickly on the great auction site without depressing the market for, e.g., Contax IIs with 50 mm Sonnars (he had a display case full of them), and that potential buyers for his really good stuff paid little attention to the great auction site. In the end, his estate sold everything to Westlicht for, I believe, pennies on the dollar. But only Westlicht had the right, um, audience and the capital to buy everything and dribble it out. To give you an idea of how good Charlie's best items were, his Super-Q Gigantar brought 90,000 Euros and his Barry Lyndon lens brought 60,000 euros, both plus a hefty buyer's premium, in Westlicht auctions. As I was typing this the OP replied that what he has is "mainly very collectible," valued around USD 300. Sorry, not even pedestrian.

Thanks for posting. I read the ppt on British lenses and lens makers. Sorry, not only does it omit some British lens manufacturers, as mentioned in Rodeo Joe's post above, it is full of misinformation and errors. Best ignored.

Apologies for the late reply. The 127/4.7 Tominon is a surprisingly good lens. I use one on a Century Graphic. It is mounted on a perfectly normal 2x3 Pacemaker Graphic lens board and it focuses usefully close. There's no need for extreme measures to use it. As the OP should have learned by now, the lens' shutter is held to the CU-5 by a normall retaining ring, Compur/Copal #1 size.