jason_greenberg_motamedi

These are, as I am sure you know, incredible lenses--one of the finest lenses Pentax (or any manufacturer) has made. The K-mount version in good shape sells for $500 and up on eBay. That said, I suspect that $400 is optimistic for a screw-mount in 8.5/10 condition.

I have both lenses. The 31/1.8 is marginally sharper wide open, but by f4 they are very similar and by f8 both resolve better than your camera. The big difference, in my mind, is how they render out-of-focus areas (bokeh). I have found the 35/2 to be very smooth and neutral while the 31/1.8 is noticeably harsher and a bit "jagged"-I think this is causes the so-called 3-D effect with the limited lenses. In any case, both are excellent lenses, as good as the best of any other maker. However, were I you I would be happy with the 35/2 and forget that the grass may or may not be rendered greener.

Frank,

 

Getting the TR repaired will be very expensive. To fix balsam failure all the elements in the group will have to be removed and then recemented. The TR has five elements in each of its two groups, so that means for the whole lens (both front and rear) you are looking at eight cemented surfaces. A few years ago that cost ~$700 with Focal Point. Probably not worth the cost for a TR. Arax in the Ukraine also does this work and is cheaper, but even so you will be looking at close to $350.

It is well established that Linhof would test their lenses and reject the poor ones, so you can bet that it performed up to par *when it was tested*. On the other hand, there is no guarantee after 50+ years of use (and a bruised bottom) that it STILL performs well, or that it would perform better with another lens's rear element.

 

I have a handful of 150mm f2.8 Xenotar lenses, and from my experience found that the regular (not-Linhof) Xenotars perform as well as the branded ones.

 

In any case, were I you, I would run a few quick tests to see which of the lenses I preferred, and while you are at it, you might as well test to see how well the swapped rear element performs.

Peter,

 

To find the correct no. 2 shutter follow Sheldon's advice: you need a 240mm Symmar convertible. Make sure NOT to buy the Symmar-S or any other flavor but plain old Symmar. I never tried a 165mm Angulon, but according the Schneider website it should work.

 

As an important aside, in the 1970s Compur stopped making (or Schneider stopped ordering) the special Compur II shutter, and all 240mm Symmars and 150mm Xenotars were fitted with adapters so they would screw into a Copal no. 3 shutters. So, if you can find a later convertible Symmar in a Copal 3, you can remove the cells, unscrew the adapters (not an easy task, you may need a machinist to help), and fit them to your Xenotar and the Copal 3.

The golden or gold-rim Dagors were supposedly marketing gimmick and didn't differ in

either layout or performance from the contemporary black-rim Dagors. If your lens is factory

coated (produced after the serial number 770000, which your is) it is in essence a gold-rim

Dagor, even if it doesn't have the gold-rim.

Try Carol Miller; http://www.flutotscamerarepair.com

It seems to me that this sort of thing that could be done best and easiest with Photoshop or

some other software, rather than in camera.

i. Generally "highspeed" Xray film is about 50ASA, although I don't specifically know about

Fuji.

 

ii. No, expose only one side. Since it is double sided some of the light will pass through

the film and expose the other side. Consequently you will loose a bit of sharpness, but I

suppose for pinhole this wouldn't matter much. It might make sense to mark to notch it,

so you know which side you exposed. This may improve sharpness a bit.

 

iii. It would be easiest to develop by inspection; use a red (not orange/amber) safelight

and develop until it looks right.

Both are way too expensive. A 1980s plasmat (Symmar-S, Sironar-N, Nikkor-W, Fujinon-W)

should run from $200 to $350 depending on condition and age.

I agree with Vinny. I had a friend purchase an early Shen-Hao for me in China before they

had a US importer, and the finish was very poor. Within a week the black paint on the metal

started chipping off and the varnish started bubbling and peeling. Can you return them?

Stopped down to f45 the coverage of a Dagor is roughly 87 degrees, or 285mm for your 6"

lens. Attached is a Dagor coverage chart, I am not sure where it came from, so apologies to

who ever scanned it.

Don't bother. The copy I had was acceptable (albeit with some chromatic aberration) stopped

down a bit, but from f2 to f4 was not sharp and had awful flare. Some say that the "Series 1"

version was better, but the sample I had was just as bad.

 

Stick with your K28/3.5. If you must go faster and can go longer try either the 31/1.8 or the

35/2.

Point and shoot cameras have tiny little sensors which produce terrible noise. The so-called

bigots should be ignored.

The short answer to your question is that super fast LF lenses are impractical; they would

be too expensive, wouldn't fit into a shutter, and would be too heavy. An 300mm f1.4 lens

would have a front element of over 8". Can you imagine the weight? Anyhow, with few

notable exceptions, the majority of LF work is done at smaller apertures.

 

That said, there are faster lenses than the f2.8 Xenotar. However, most are difficult to find

and are not terribly sharp. Of those out there, I have heard good things about the

Dallmeyer f1.9 Super-Six and of course the f1.8 Ernostar is legendary. There are of course

lots of aerial lenses which might fit the bill, however these are often too large for practical

use. I saw a 9" f1.5 Perkins-Elmer Aerial lens which would cover 9x9 (I think). It weight

more than I do.

Sure, an enlarging lens will work, but they won't be as sharp at infinity as a regular taking

lens. You won't however find a wide-angle enlarging lens which is both affordable and sharp.

Sharp, cheap, MC, WA 4x5 lens in Barrel? No such thing, except special order items. It will be

far cheaper to buy a modern but used wide angle lens in shutter from one of the big four.

According to the list at http://www.largeformatphotography.info/classic-experts.html your

lens was made between 1903 and 1905.

Sheldon's advice is sound; Either use the lens wide open or sell it, it just doesn't make sense

to use this particular lens beyond f5.6. A multicoated plasmat will be sharper and have MUCH

larger movements. The Xenotar will only just cover 4x5 (IC of about 170mm). You should

easily be able to get $400-500 on eBay for this barrel mounted lens.

 

To put it in a shutter the best option is to pick up an older convertible 240 Symmar and swap

glass. You will still need an aperture scape, which Grimes can make. Alternatively, you can

mount the barrel on a Speed Graphic, adjust the rangefinder to the Xenotar, and use the

camera's shutter.

Are you asking about how close a lens will focus? If so, this is determined by the bellows

of your camera, not the lens.

 

Alternatively, perhaps you are asking about depth of field? There are lots of charts on the

web, so do a google search.

 

By your question, I am guessing you are pretty new to photography. Might I suggest

reading a book? At minimum it would help you find the correct vocabulary to ask your

questions here more clearly. There are a number of books on LF photography, try your

local library!

 

ps: 1 inch = 25.4mm, so a 4" lens is 101.6mm

According to the Lens Collectors Vade Mecum the Rodenstock Bistigmat is probably a very

simple periscopic type lens working at f13 and not color corrected. As such it might make an

interesting soft focus lens, but would difficult to use if sharp results are desired. Attaching it

to a DSLR shouldn't be difficult using a macro-focusing bellows. Since it is rated for 18x24cm

I would guess that it has a FL of about 300mm.

I have the K version of the 85/1.8 and absolutely love it. It is truely one of the finest lenses

Pentax has ever made.

Depends on the size, condition but most importantly your location. These are not easy to

ship so you need to sell to someone who can pick it up.

 

Often they are just given away. I have a beautiful one from the 1890s which I found in a

dumpster.

Ah yes, now that I look at it again I see you are correct. In any case, it is still weird.

Weird; I guess it is a camera for tri-color separations, but why would anyone do that with

35mm?