Jump to content

How does everyone feel about convertable lenses?


canon man

Recommended Posts

I have heard some peopel say good and ohters say bad. I bought a

Shnieder Linhoff Symmar in a Linhoff-Compur shutter on ebay. I went

ahead and went forthis one because I know the Shneider lens and no

the glass to be great glass. I have heard that some are not as

contrasty and sharp as other lenses but like I said I went wit hab it

of experience knowing the Shnieder name to be a good name. Anyone

know any more about these?

 

Incidenatally I am putting it on a Newton NewVue I was able to find

in the classifieds here. IOW I was able to get a camear exactly like

the one I had for the same amount I sold my other one for. I can

definetly live with that. I know these to be sturdy and make great

feild cameras.

Thanks,

Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have owned and used one of these single-coated lenses, a

150mm f 5.6, made in 1957. It was sharp, but as you mentioned,

lower in contrast than some more modern glass. It had its own

distinctive look, meaning its personality shows in the

print�some will like it, others will not.

 

If you use it single cell shooting black and white, you might try

using a yellow filter. I have heard this helps image quality. I hope

you enjoy your lens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the moment I have 3 150mm lenses: A Symmar, an APO-Lanthar, and a Heliar from 1934. The only reason I don't sell the Symmar is that it's convertible. Any "softness" is only a problem if you want to make murals. Compared to the uncoated Heliar it really shines. (I don't sell the Heliar because it sits on a Voigtländer Bergheil plate camera, and I don't sell the Lanthar because I sold one once and regretted it immediately).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel, conggrats on oyur gournalism an leernyng of SLR in hte last 16 yeears. And I say its good, though ohters say bad. And even bettr to hear that you were able to get a camear exactly like the one you had for the same amount you sold your other one for. Did you buy my Schnieder or was it a Winerschnitzel? They serve it on glass. It is a great feild camel but put ruuber gloves first before you put the Newton NewVue on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No wise guy response here. When I think of who I consider to be the greatest photographers and or printers, most of them are dead. Point being, Schneider made these lenses as top of the line glass long after E.W. had passed. I'm a fan of the convertible lens. They are cheap to buy and nice to carry. Biggest problem seems to be that users take the wrong element off the lens.(remove the front not the rear) Check the focus as you stop down. Yes, as stated above use a yellow filter. You may want to increase development time to add contrast.

 

When I see all the crap written on photo-net about how you HAVE to shoot with only the Super XL APO-Cosmic lens, I just laugh.

 

When can these posters show anything as good as what Adams, Weston, Cunningham, would have thrown in the garbage?

 

Now while I only contact print 8X10 in B&W, that's no excuse. Is there somebody out there that wants to tell Mr.Adams that he used junky lenses? Or that his enlargments were blurry? Too soft on the edges?

 

Get real. If you like to collect glass, admit it. Nothing wrong with nice photo stuff. I have a bunch of nice photo toys, but none of it helps to make better photos.

 

BTW, Sally Mann is doing OK intentionally using a junk lens.

 

About the spelling. This is photo-net. Writers need not apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>John who gives a crap about the spelling, its late and I'm not writing an essay, its a post on photo forum.

 

I do. Especially when I have to re-read a line several times to figure out what the poster means. I hope your journalism professors show you no mercy. I'm sure they will spend a lot of time with you on the contraction of 'it is' and where the apostrophe goes.

 

>photo.net dowsn't ahve one...

 

Treu, end it showz. But how hard is it to compose in a program that does and paste it in?

 

>About the spelling. This is photo-net. Writers need not apply.

 

-- Jim Rhoades

 

Yur a jenius Jeem. But, since you hadn't noticed, the forums are for written communication. A sad commentary that you feel the need to limit yourself to one discipline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't ignore the convertible possibility of modern lenses either. While not designed to be convertible may of them perform quite well as convertibles. I have used a 240 Symmar S MC that way by accident and was pleawsantly surprised with the results.

 

Experiment a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Daniel; I have to agree with Jim. Too much is sometimes made about lens quality. It really is a personal choice based on what YOU feel YOU need to accomplish. As I have posted in the past, one of my favorite pictures was made with an old 9 1/2" Wollensak Series IV lens with scratches, grunge, and a chip. I print it on Grade 4 Ilfobrom Galerie (the negative was underdeveloped), and it is sharp, contrasty (thanks to the paper),with unbelieveable shadow detail. This is for an 8x10 contact print. For enlarged prints from 4x5, the lens will make more of a difference, still its a matter of what YOU want to accomplish. My sharpest, contrasty lens is a 203 Ektar, but many times I prefer the sharp, but not quite as sharp WF Ektars I have. Film and print processing is a factor that shouldn't be over looked.

I have two Wollensak Triples of Protar design. An old Velostigmat 13/20/25 1/2" Series 1A, and a more recent 16 1/4/25/31" Series 1A Raptar. Love them both, though I use the older, uncoated Velostigmat most, either with the combined elements, or the 20" rear element. The pictues made with the single 20" element aren't quite as sharp as those made with the combined elements, but aren't bad. My 240mm Dagor can also be converted to approximately a 420mm, but I haven't tried it that way yet.

Make pictures, and study the results. Then decide what needs to be impoved to give you what YOU want to accomplish. Good luck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey John, I really could not give a rats ass about what you think of others spelling. Mine in in particular. First, I do not use a spell checker period! in when writing a serious peice I do not even wait t=until the end to check spelling I correct paragraph by paragragp or aftre an idea has been placed in writing and can go back after the flow and make sure the spelling and grammar is correct. In fact I have always had a stronger grasp on the English language than many grads I know who hold Master's degrees.

 

That said I turned to writing instead of journalism as my ethics are too high to go prying into other lives and asking questions I would not appreciate others asking of me. That is what makes me a bad reporter not an inability to write. Instead I write columns and magazine style entries now based off obsevation, research, and experience. If you don't like it don't read it. Better yet, keep it to yourself as a troll, and so far your contribution is completely unwarranted and senseless. Again, this is a post on photo forum not a Master's Thesis

 

Thanks to the other posters who chose to write something constructive, and helpful. From what I am gathering this lens should give me what my old Kodak Anistigmat deleivered which actaully was pretty good for an uncoated lens. This particular lens looks to be sitting in a newer shutter and the price war started at the end telling me that somebody else wanted it too. I take that as a good sign. For me the big thing is to be able to use the camera for now. I have a 210mm barrel lens that just needs a large shutter. If I decide I do not like the effects of the longer focal length I can find a shutter for the Meier Gorlitz. But that is also part of the fun of using older camears, trying different lenses to see what they do.

Thanks, to those who actually contributed. To everyone else I bet it makes you feel like big men to smart off to someone you can't look directly in the face. Lets me know quite a bit about your character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon,

In fact I have noticed that this forum is for written communication. I also have taken note that Mr. Sandlin's question was pertaining to convertible lenses. You have contributed nothing to the thread question. You have only been rude to another over grammer and spelling. As to my limiting myself to one disipline, please feel free to take a red magic marker and correct all spelling errors you may find on your screen. That will teach me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Daniel, since you asked, I do.

 

I believe that writing, including spelling, is important, and that even informal writing deserves accurate spelling. I�m assuming that you want forum members to take your posts seriously and to give serious thought to how they respond to them. Therefore, it�s not amiss to write your question with care.

 

And, please remember, you did ask.

 

Cheers,

 

Joe Stephenson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have gotten to the point where I seriously do not care. Bob, please delete this thread. thanks for those of you who were actually helpful as for the rest of you get a life, maybe if it bothers you so then offer the maintainer your services to go through and correct all the spelling on the forum, or just get a freaking life. There are a few other places to get the information I may need. Not here, this is sickening.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not spell well. I never have been able to recognize most of my own errors. It IS a pain to check everything, sometimes I don't, but I am not proud of that.

 

If I am asking for someone�s attention and time I feel I should put in a reasonable amount of time into the question. I forgive small errors, as I would hope they are forgiven for me. I forgive large errors too, as I hope to be forgiven for some large errors. There is a point of carelessness though, that gets to me. It is not that I am proud to be angry, I just understand that it happens. I don�t understand why some get so very angry that they must denigrate.

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Schneider is a good lens. I have the 210/370 convertible in a Copal shutter. For maximum sharpness, it is used with both the front and back elements (210mm). For closeups or portraits, the front element unscrews to make it 370mm. If you contact print, you may not notice any lack of sharpness. If you enlarge, it depends on how demanding you are. Actually for portraits, a little softness can be a good thing. If you see a drop in contrast at the longer length, use a filter or develop the film a little bit longer to "pump it up".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

This was an interesting thread to read. I was looking first for information on the Heliar lens, as found on a Voigtlander.

 

However, then this dispute about spelling came up.

 

I like good spelling and good writing. However, errors crop in most everyone's spelling. It sometimes obscures what one is trying to say, so I try to correct mine, to be understood. Yet, I was able to discern what the fellows were trying to say, which is most important.

 

I hope this kind of disputatiousness does not crop up too much here. It has been so refreshing a site to learn from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...