quality of Osaka LF lenses

[terry_g._walsh]

Is anyone familiar with the quality of the Osaka lenses offered by Bromwell Marketing? They seem to be very competatively priced. Also any comments on the LF cameras offered by Bromwell.

[ted_brownle]

The Osaka lenses are 4 element 3 group Tessar type lenses. These are excellent lenses but they have limited coverage. In reviewing the spec sheet on Bromwell's web site, the 500mm tele-tessar lens would barely cover the 4 x 5 diagonal. If you can live with reduced coverage (limits tilts and swings), then these are a good deal. Also an excellent option for those on a limited budget. Congo lenses are of similar construction and performance, but I don;t believe they have a U.S. distributor

[mark_schumann]

The Sept/Oct 97 issue of View Camera magazine has a article titled "Cheaper Glass". It mentions and compares the Osaka lenses to some better known brands. Overall, the conclusion was that they are good value for the money. The 150mm model is a 6 element design, the others are 4 element tessars. I'm not sure but a reprint of the article may be on View camera's website. Bromwell also has a website.

[david_rose1]

I use a 120mm Osaka for 4x5 Professional architectural photography. I have made many fine images with it, some that have been enlarged to 20x24 and look great. This particular lens offers the combination of low cost, small size, good coverage for 4x5 and high quality. This is a "wide field" design, I think similar to the old Kodak WF Ektars. The problem with the typical 120mm f8 wide angles by Schneider, Nikon etc. is that they have excess coverage for 4x5- they nearly cover 8x10. This makes them very big and heavy- and expensive. The only other 120/125s I would consider for 4x5 would be the 125 5.6 Fuji and the Scheinder 120mm 5.6 Super Symmar, but both of them are larger, more expensive and have less coverage than the Osaka. Final note- I notice that the Osaka and Congo lens lines are very similar- is it possible that Ted Bromwell gets the Osakas from Congo?

[bob_salomon3]

"I have made many fine images with it, some that have been

enlarged to 20x24"

 

<p>

 

They should since this is the same amount of magnification that

you would use to make a 4x5" print from a 35mm negative.

 

<p>

 

Virtually all 4x5" prints from all 35mm cameras look good. 4x

simply isn't a test.

[glenn_kroeger]

Unless my math fails me, 20x24 is at least a 5x enlargement from a

4x5 original, so it's more like a 5x7 print from 35mm.

[shambrick007]

"4x simply isn't a test." It's a test if it satisfies his needs.

[bob_salomon3]

"Unless my math fails me, 20x24 is at least a 5x enlargement

from a 4x5 original, so it's more like a 5x7 print from 35mm. "

 

<p>

 

Sorry you are right, but 5x still isn't much of a test or a challange.