Tachihara 4x5 and Linhof lenses

[federico_prieto]

<p>I have 3 lenses of a Linhof Super Technika III, version 1 from 1946:<br /><br />- VOIGTLÄNDER Braunschwela Heliar 1:4.5 f 15cm (Compur Shutter)<br /><br />- SCHNEIDER KREUZNACH Tele - Xenar 1:5.5 /300 (Compur Shutter )<br /><br />- SCHNEIDER KREUZNACH Angulon 1:6.8/90 (Compur Shutter )<br /><br />May I use this lenses on a Tachihara 4x5? ...Any other camera and/or recomendation about?<br /><br />tia<br /><br />fp</p>

[bob_salomon]

<p>Your old boards will not fit newer cameras. You will need newer lens boards. Also that 90mm covered 9x12cm per Schneider and Linhof, not full 4x5" so you might want to look into a better 90mm lens.</p>

[jim_graves1]

<p>The SCHNEIDER KREUZNACH Angulon 1:6.8/90 (Compur Shutter ) does cover 4x5 ... even wide open. It does not cover it by much ... so movements are very restricted and corner detail is limited somewhat. I have the exact same lens/shutter combination and it is my standard 90mm for 4x5 for backpacking because of its small size and light weight.<br /> Here is a link to a lens chart that includes coverage information: http://www.allenrumme.com/lensdb/Wide%20Angle.html<br /> <code></code> <code><br /> </code></p>

[jim_graves1]

<p>One other good reference on the 90mm Angulon's coverage is Kerry Thalmann's site:<br /> http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/wide.htm</p>

[bob_salomon]

<p>We are talking about two different things. When a manufacturer states that their lens covers a certain circle they are using the criteria that it covers to the industry specifications. However a lens can through light beyond that circle. But the image out there will not be to the manufacturer's specifications. So how well it performs out there depends primarily on what level of quality you are willing to accept.<br>

In other words, it may illuminate the full 4x5 image but not to the manufacturer's specifications. There are many far better 90mm lenses available that will critically resolve detail at the corners and the edges at infinity and allow for quite a bit of camera corrections and maintain that quality. Something that the 90mm Angulon can not do.<br>

And yes, someone might stop the lens down well beyond the optimal aperture to slightly increase the image circle but they do that at the cost of degrading image quality by diffraction.</p>

[jim_graves1]

<p>We're not really talking different things ... I agree with virtually everything you've posted. I merely thought the initial response left the impression that the lens will not cover a 4x5 negative. It does.</p>

<p>I cited to Thalmann's page because he has actually tested 5 different 90mm Angulons for coverage and resolution and recommends it as a very compact lightweight 4x5 field lens with acknowledged but acceptable (in his opinion ... and mine) limitations.</p>

<p>And, as you said, "it depends on what level of quality you are willing to accept." I have, what I consider at least, "acceptable" quality 11x14 prints from 4x5 negatives taken with my 90mm Angulon.</p>

 

[dave_s]

<p>LOL, Bob seems to have a thing about Angulons! This has all been rehashed <em>ad nauseam</em> <a href="00Tvry">here</a>, a couple of months ago.</p>

<p>A good Angulon is a fine lens, and of course it will (just) cover 4 x 5 at small apertures, which is where an Angulon performs best. Schneider is a refreshingly ethical company, and they have a reputation for being conservative with their stated lens specifications. </p>

<p>Of course there's no movements, and you may want to look out for a bit of focus shift as you stop down, although I never found that to be a problem when I had a 90 Angulon. Great lightweight lens for backpacking, but if you have a spare half a grand, a Super Angulon would generally be the better lens.</p>

[jim_graves1]

<p> Ahhh ... I missed that earlier thread. The funny thing is ... I have both lenses ... a 90 mm Angulon and a 90 mm Super Angulon. I use the Angulon far more just because of the portability and the way I shoot. Not for everybody, no doubt, but acceptable for me.</p>

<p> And, I've always enjoyed Bob's posts ... here and on the LargeFormatPhotography.info forum. A lot of excellent information, freely shared ... I appreciate that.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>"Coverage" is like painting a house, TV reception, how much 13-13-13 goes on the lawn; how your local football team is "covered"; how many cc's of ink per square meter of prints.<br>

<br /> Unless one defines a CRITERIA for COVERAGE; one is really not doing any engineering; just BSing.<br>

<br /> Farmers spreading mature might debate coverage too.<br>

<br /> With manure one might talk about LBs per acre.<br>

<br /> If one wants to goose inkjet coverage numbers; then quote line work and pie charts; then Joe Six back goes how and prints actual photos and finds out that he soon needs more ink cartridges.<br>

<br /> Coverage with lenses has CHANGED over the ages; once it was often more so for ILLUMINATION; because folks contact printed; or made 2X or 4X enlargements. Gee; 8x10 prints or 16x20 from 4x5.<br>

<br /> Coverage for LF can more in modern times boxed in be performance; folks dream about making 10x enlargements from 8x10's; and getting inches from full wall prints. :)</p>

[bob_salomon]

<p>Coverage with a lens means that the lens critically performs to the limits of the stated circle. Detailed information on the edges and corners will be satisfactorily detailed to be acceptably sharp. That the fall off does not obscure the edges and corners.<br>

in short, the manufacturer of that Angulon and the camera company that marketed it both stated that it covered 9x12cm and not 4x5". If you are willing to accept the shortcomings in that lens that led the manufacturer to discontinue it about half a century ago and replace it with a design that does fully cover 4x5 and allow movements then go ahead and use it. Just be aware, there are much better performers available today if you are critical.<br>

It had one benefit. It was small. But that benefit came at the cost of limited full coverage, erratic performance over its' life and lack of contrast compared to more modern 90mm lenses. </p>