Schneider-Kreuznach Lenses

<p>Thanks Guys. All good advice. I'll shoot for this Saturday at Jimmy Koh's. I know him a while. My friend had a studio and I worked with him for many years shooting weddings and other events. We always shopped at Koh's. The S/No. on the cold shoe reads: 2622049. The monorail seems to be one piece and the rear does go up and down. The S/No. should reveal if this is a Kardan Color or a Color. Wonder why Linhof called it a "color?" </p>

<p>Just a final word about fresnel screens – LF photographers managed without them for 100 years, so they are far from essential. I would say that they are superfluous in viewing situations in which ambient light is totally excluded (such as viewing with a dark cloth over your head or using a monocular/binocular viewer). Fresnel screens are very useful when you are viewing a screen out of doors via a focusing hood and have your face 2 feet or more from the screen. The downside of fresnel screens is that they can work too well – they can give an even viewing image even in cases where the camera lens concerned is vignetting (darkening its image towards the edges). In fact, with a fresnel screen fitted, it is very hard to spot when a lens is running out of coverage.<br>

In the end it is a matter of taste – some LF photographers like to contemplate their focusing screens for a long time and even carry out critical focusing at taking aperture (e.g. f16, 22 or smaller) – if you do this, you will need all the help you can get from a fresnel screen. Others (including me) focus at full aperture, use camera movements to get most of the depth of field they require and then simply stop down to f16 or 22 without re-checking the focus. Among very old lenses, problems may be encountered such as focus shift on stopping down or wide-angle lenses cheerfully engraved “f6.3 for focusing only”, where the sharpness at full aperture was poor and not representative of stopped-down performance, but today’s WA lenses such as the Super Angulon, Symmar XL, Nikkor SW etc. do not do this.</p>

<p>"Just a final word about fresnel screens – LF photographers managed without them for 100 years, s"<br>

Fresnel screens, or Kodak Ektalite Field Lenses, have been used on view cameras since at least the 1950s. They simply make viewing and composing much easier.</p>

<p>however, there are some third party enhanced viewing screen systems which can create problems, especially if you do noy keep your eye centered in the optical axis. Smaller format cameras, 35mm 6x45, 6x6, 6x7, etc. all have a fresnel type system in the viewing system.</p>

<p><em>Fresnel screens, or Kodak Ektalite Field Lenses, have been used on view cameras since at least the 1950s.</em><br>

Absolutely! The 100 years I was referring to was from 1839 to 1950 (to be exact. that is of course 111 years :)).</p>

<p>That also means that most modern photographers have had the benefit of them. Many of those old photographers also transferred their equipment by mule cart and Conestoga wagons. They could't drive or fly. Jusy because Brady didn't have access to a modern piece of equipment or to an approvement to his equipment means that we have to also do without it. And he would probably have been first in line to add it to his equipment if it had been available and he was solvent at the time.</p>

<p>Bob, it really is a matter of horses for courses. In many years of professional LF studio photography, I used cameras with plain ground glass screens. As the camera back in this situation is outside the lit area, I found I could see the screen image perfectly well, as indeed I could and can, even at the age of 62, in any situation where the camera screen is in darkness (which is the case in the studio and even outside with a monocular or bincocular viewer). I'd rather have a plain screen than a bright screen which does not accurately represent what will find its way onto the film - of course I'd fit a bright screen if I was using an exposure metering system that was calibrated for one. I do have a Beattie screen in my Crown Graphic - since this has limited movements, I do not have the problem of trying to judge lens coverage by viewing the screen.</p>

<p>The fresnel does accurately show what will go on film. It lets you see evenly into the corners but, if the lens has fall-off it also shows that as well. And if a lens vignettes it also shows that.<br>

The below statement is just plain wrong.<br>

". I'd rather have a plain screen than a bright screen which does not accurately represent what will find its way onto the film "</p>

 

<p>Bob. the Linhof S/No. is: 2622049<br>

Any insight would be appreciated. I'd really like to know which model this is and approximately what year it was made.</p>

<p>Thanks, Steve</p>

 

<p>That is a Kardan Color 45 made in about 1966</p>

<p><em>The fresnel does accurately show what will go on film. It lets you see evenly into the corners but, if the lens has fall-off it also shows that as well. And if a lens vignettes it also shows that.</em><br /><em>The below statement is just plain wrong.</em><br /><em>". I'd rather have a plain screen than a bright screen which does not accurately represent what will find its way onto the film "</em><br>

Bob, I am SO sorry that I don't agree with you! Have it your way - I know what works for me.</p>

<p>Then why not state why it doesn't work for you?</p>

<p>Well,my eyes are 63 turns around the sun. I put my 65/8 Super-Angulon on a self-constructed 6x12 camera, scale-focused , so no worries about focusing brightness either.<br>

I really like my SA 90/8,and can focus it just fine on 4x5.It would be the one lens I would put a fresnel lens behind,but I would buy a $6.00 plastic model from Office Supplies.<br>

Anything longer - fresnel,what fresnel?<br>

You have a good 4x5 setup as it stands.</p>

<p>Bob, pardon me for asking a slightly personal question, but in your photo.net profile you state your main activity as being associated with marketing and distribution. Is it the case that you have gained most of your (obviously extensive) product knowledge from reading catalogs and handling equipment in showrooms rather than from everyday professional practice? Knowing this would help me to understand where you are coming from.<br />As regards stating why I don’t use fresnel screens – I have mentioned this in previous postings, but to recap briefly: Experience with the camera (Nikon F3) for which I have the most different screens (6 or 7) indicates that a fresnel screen gives increased viewfinder brightness with standard or near-standard lenses of large aperture. As the lens parameters move away from these (long-focus lenses, high-magnification macro, extreme wide angle, small apertures, lens off-axis due to camera movements), things like fresnel rings, microprisms, spilt-image rangefinders, etc. become less useful and even darken and therefore get in the way. Interestingly, my Leitz Visoflexes, specially made for the cases such as long-focus lenses etc. mentioned above, all have a plain ground glass screen which is not as bright as a fresnel but is equally good for all optical conditions.<br />It has been my experience that the same principles apply to LF photography – on the one hand, as I said, if you can exclude all extraneous light while looking at the screen, a plain screen will be fine for almost all shooting situations, while on the other I have found that I am not able to accurately see the limits of lens coverage when viewing with a fresnel, so on balance I do without one, and incidentally save myself upwards of $1000 in the case of my 8x10 camera. If you set up 2 cameras in a brightly-lit showroom with focusing hoods, one with a fresnel and one without, the screen image of the one with the fresnel will look infinitely better, but this does not translate to everyday working conditions. I am a very experienced LF photographer, but even I was caught out the first time I went outdoors with my (then) newly-acquired MPP Mark VII technical camera, fitted with a Beattie screen, and an also newly-acquired Nikkor SW 135 mm lens – the screen image looked fine, even with quite a lot of swing front applied, but there was heavy vignetting on the negs.<br />As far as advice to the OP goes, what I wanted to suggest above all was that it need not necessarily cost him a fortune to start in LF and that a fresnel screen, while advantageous under certain circumstances, is not essential – the Chinese viewing hood which I referenced plus a plain screen would work fine too.</p>

<p>David,</p>

<p>I am a graduate of the USAF Photo School at Lowry AFB. I entered the USAF as a ByPass Specialist in Photography, I was an USAF RecTec photographer, I owned a studio in CT for most of a decade, I was a photographer for several news papers. I have been a salesman in photo stores as well as managed several photo stores in CT and NY, I was the Product Manager for Beseler enlargers as well as the Beseler Topcon Super D, I was Adminstrator of Studio Lighting for Rollei of America, I was Product Manager for Professional Cameras and Flash for Rollei of America. I was the National Sales Person for Sinar, Broncolor and Ademco for EPOI.<br>

I have done professional catalog as well as news, portrait and wedding photography and I am currently involved in the sales and marketing of the products imported by HP Marketing in the USA. If you do not know what they are you can check our web site; www.hpmarketingcorp.com.<br>

Every Nikon has a fresnel in the viewing system. But Nikon offered speciality screens for specific ranges of lenses, as you noted. Large format is different. The fresnel screen sold by a large format manufacturer is designed and picked to work with as wide a range of focal lengths as possible. Some manufacturers, like Wista, also offer special Fresnel screens for long focal length lenses but the standard one works with extreme wide to the longest normally used lenses.<br>

View finder aids like split image rangefinders and microprism systems are not the Fresnel. The Fresnel is simply a field lens.<br>

Some people buy enhanced viewing screens and those can sometimes create a problem when focusing and viewing with a view camera. With shorter lenses they lose "bite" making it more difficult to see the subject "snap" into and out of focus. They also can make focusing long lenses, when doing movements - especially with base tilt cameras, difficulty as if your eye does not remain on the optical axis the screen can black out.<br>

These are not issues with modern ground glasses and Fresnels as supplied by the camera manufacturers.<br>

And yes, a Frenel is a lens, and its focal length is matched to work with the normal range of lenses used on a camera. That was why Nikon had a choice dedicated to specific lenses.</p>

<p>Thanks for the background, Bob -looks as if the OP now has plenty of info as the basis for deciding what he wants to do!</p>

<p>I disagree with the statement that 65mm is "too wide" for 4x5. As always, the usefulness of a lens depends on the purpose for which it is used. If 65mm were "too wide" then why would Schneider have made a 58mm Super Angulon XL for 4x5?<br>

I own a 6x9 Linhof Technika IV that came with, among others, a 65mm f/8 Super Anglulon. I have on occasion mounted that lens on my 4x5 Technikardan. I used this to make panoramic images on 4x5 film, in which case any vignetting at the corners is irrelevant as those are cropped during printing. I have enlarged the resulting 4x5 negatives to 12 x 20" with excellent results, one of my top selling photographs was made with this combination. I now own the 58 XL and can get even nicer panoramics. Neither of the two lenses allows any significant rise or fall but again for my purposes that too is irrelevant.</p>

<p>Ron Gratz</p>

<p>

"why would Schneider have made a 58mm Super Angulon XL for 4x5?" or a 47mm and why would Rodenstock offer the 55 and 45mm Apo Grandsons?

 

 

</p>

<p>Bob, I think you mean Grandagon's. :-)<br>

Ron</p>

<p>Spell checkers!</p>