Old Spiratone lens creates a stir

<p>Terrific thread for the duffers among us. Here is my homage to Spiratone. I brings Spiratone to mind, but does not use one of their products. (One of my prized possessions is a 1973 or so Johnson Smith catalog. I consider it great literature, enhanced by great art. I am not so blessed with vintage photo publications, so I have to rely on my memory for Spiratone....)</p>

<p>

<p>I see Sterling-Howard was based in Yonkers. Reminds me of a Lady Gaga interview awhile back in which she said the worst rumor about her was that she was from Yonkers.</p>

<p>I would only throw stones, Lex, because I was NOT without "guilt." (Have I got that right?)</p>

<p>I used the Google map and so on to actually get ground-level and satellite pictures (What can I say?) of the various Spiratone locations over the years. I think the Queens location was their main place, at least for mail-order, late on in the history of the company.</p>

<p>Fred Spira started developing film in the bathroom sometime around 1941, but the company doesn't advertise nationally that I can recognize until 1945. Here's the oldest Spiratone ad I have from <em>Minicam Photography</em> (<em>Modern Photography </em> after 1949) of October 1945.</p><div></div>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/Images%20of%20cameras/SPIRATONE.jpg?t=1263072526" alt="" /></p>

<p>The beast in 2010 is digital ready!</p>

<p>My 400mm F6.3 Spiratone cost 34.95; it was that price in the late 1960's and early to mid 1970's too. This lens in the photo is from about 1973.</p>

<p>Here is the $ 34.95 Spiratone 400mm F6.3 preset at F11 shot with an Epson RD-1; the first shot is with a 5cm F2 LTM Nikkor set to F11 too. iso was a set high; ie 1600.<br>

This is a scale focus shot; lens set below 100 feet; say 80.<br>

5CM SHOT; 400mm shot and cropped 400mm shot:s</p>

<p><br /><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/Images%20of%20cameras/_EPS771650mmnikkor.jpg?t=1263076848" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/Images%20of%20cameras/_EPS7715400mmF11SHOT.jpg?t=1263077084" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/Images%20of%20cameras/_EPS7715400MMF11CROP.jpg?t=1263077777" alt="" /></p>

<p>This is all most interesting. Kelly, what you have there is similar to what I am getting on film - I attach two photos that may be of interest. They were taken at f/16 as advised.</p><div></div>

<p>And one more - this one taken today on my Nikon F3. Fuji 200 film, f/16 aperture.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is another shot at F11; subject is about 600 ft away. It is a bright day but some folks like me are burning firewood. The lens is peering thru a tad of this haze. With a long shot the contrast is lower. Thus with a film shot one might want to develop abit more to bump up the contrast; with digital one might do a levels correction.<br>

<br />With the digital shot below; the first is the actual full frame shot uncorrected; the second image is the levels of the uncorrected shot . All channels have a narrow range; ie all the info is all bunched up in the middle section. The third shot is with a level correction; each channelof R, G and B had its darkest and lightest points set. This bumps up the contast; it actually appears better than by eye; or doing a spy bino shot; to catch that moviestar for the checkup stand stuff..<br>

<br />Exposure is 1/446 second at F11; iso 1600; body Epson RD-1/s; scale focus; hand held. I use a section of the RF patch as my gunsite.:) A long lenshood would have helped somewhat. This is with the singlecoated 400mm F6.3 lens.<br>

With B&W film and tri-x and baseball; I would develop abit more to bump up the contast.<br>

<br />.<br /><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/Images%20of%20cameras/_EPS7675house.jpg?t=1263080017" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/Images%20of%20cameras/_EPS7675houseLEVELS.jpg?t=1263080520" alt="" /><br /><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/Images%20of%20cameras/_EPS7675HOUSELEVELSCHANGE.jpg?t=1263080574" alt="" /></p>

<p>Interesting shots. Looks pretty good for a lens that was and is still, so cheap to buy. For years now on this site, I've been trying to push the people who "I need a lens over 300mm and I only have $300 to spend" to take a look at this one as an alternative. I don't find the manual focusing on these to be such a problem, and most of them were always pre-set anyhow.<br>

Even with a tripod, there <em>could</em> be problems with vibration in so long a lens, although I haven't shot comparisons with the mirror up and down to see how much effect there is (or isn't).</p>

<p>I have the Seimar version of the 400mm f6.3. We used to get them from Kalt back the late 70's. We had a couple in stock at the family camera shop. A few years ago a friend gave my a Tele-Astronar 500mm f8 which I think is the same lens as the Spiratone. Both perform well.</p><div></div>

<p>In addition to the 500mm Spiratone lens I had , I also had a Spiratone 6x6 enlarger.Also, I think that my 8mm movie film to 120 film copier was also from Spiratone. They did have some great products for the budget minded.</p>

<p>JDM, when I use my D50 digital camera (which does not have MLU) you can see obvious vertical blurring on the photos when checking at 100%. My F3 has a horizontal travelling shutter and with MLU engaged there is no blurring visible.</p>

<p>The mount on these lenses is good, but because there is such a massive overhang front and rear from the tripod, any movement robs sharpness.</p>

<p>Thanks, Ian.</p>

<p>My daughter (I got her one of these) had indicated she had a small amount of blur without using MLU, too.</p>

<p>Kool...... Love my Spiratone 400mm too. The most comments tho, out of all my gear.........Ilford film.</p>

<p>The two Spiratone 400mm f/6.3 lenses I own (from fleaBay), one Pluracoat, one not, have an interesting quirk. The rear element of each of these, despite being glass, has a tendency to accumulate a hazy coating. But the lens is easily disassembled, the rear element removed and cleaned, and reassembled with no difficulty. [ I have also observed that some wine glasses in my kitchen cabinet develop a haze over time, while others in the same cabinet do not. Odd...]</p>

<p>I also have one of those Vivitar 300mm f/5.6 T-mounts that Lex described. Unfortunately there is a lot of haze on the inner surfaces of the front two elements, so the contrast is quite bad. I don't have a spanner that would allow me to take the thing apart so that I could clean the glass, unfortunately. But at a weight of 31 oz (heavier than my 5D body!), I find the lens comes in handy for cracking walnuts.</p>

<p>Ben, mine had that hazy coating too (and some fungus there). Easy job to clean them though, as you say.</p>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=945968"><strong>Ian Rance</strong></a><strong> </strong><a href="../member-status-icons"><strong><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></strong></a><strong>, Jan 11, 2010; 10:21 a.m.</strong></p>

 

<p><strong>Ben, mine had that hazy coating too (and some fungus there). Easy job to clean them though, as you say.</strong></p>

 

<p >I also have one Spiratone 400mm f/6.3 lense that I bought in the 1970. I used it with diferent canon bodies in thoses days. I read your comments with interest since I bought an eos 40 d last year and would like to try to fit the spiratone to it. Ian and Ben seem to say it is easy to clean the back lens. <strong>Please explain how do you disassemble, the rear element remove it and clean it?</strong> I am going to Manhatan early march any recommendation for a photo shop around mid-town. I am looking for a zoom/telephoto.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have two Spiratone 400mm F6.3 both are the "Sharpshooter" shown in the 1961 ad. There are others and they can really be junk ,so be careful. The Sharpshooter can be front lens adjusted for infinity, lenses cleaned [3] and used with great success. I use my D700 and shoot in manual mode , aperture mode is OK but limited. My D300 and D200 work well also but not as sweet as the D700. The key to getting nice results with this lens is lots of sunshine if possible & a good DSLR.<br>

Does anyone have an opinion on the Spiratone 500mm F8 ?</p>

<p>Spiratone's 400 and 500mm telephotos were and are a remarkable value. In October of 1979, MODERN PHOTOGRAPHY tested the 400mm f/6.3 and recorded excellent resolution figures of 50 lppm at f/11 to 56 lppm at f/16 and 22 on center. Edge sharpness was also excellent at 40 lppm at f/11 and f/22.<br>

MODERN PHOTOGRAPHY tested the Spiratone 500mm f/8 alongside the 400mm and measured excellent resolution figures from wide open(!) to f/22 at 52 to 58 lppm down the center and excellent from wide-open to f/22 in the corners at 45 lppm at f/8, 47 lppm at f/11, 45 lppm at f/16 and 40 lppm at f/22.<br>

For your reference, POP PHOTOGRAPHY tested the late model Zeiss Planar 80mm f/2.8 CF-Series in November of 1995, shooting an Air Force resolution test target on Kodak T Max film at f/8 and measured <strong>47 linepairs per millimeter!</strong> They said this was a typical resolution figure for medium format cameras. So, even though the Spiratone pre-sets are inexpensive and, yes, have some chromatic aberration (all long lenses do, unless they are made with low-dispersion glass) they still are able to hold their own with more modern optics. Since many of us can make corrections in the computer, these issues are moot.</p>