dan_fromm2

<p>Why are you asking people who don't have <em>your</em> lens how good it is? You have the thing, ask it.</p>

<p>David, you're right, concision is a virtue. </p> <p>That said, I'm tired of one and two sentence answers to apparently simple questions that need a book-length answer. I'm also tired of short apparently authoritative answers that are wrong. And I'm sick of answers to "what should I get?" questions that say "get what I have" without consideration of the original posters' goals and constraints.</p> <p>Sorry, I come by my grumpiness honestly.</p>

<p>David Bebbington asked</p> <blockquote> <p><em>Further on that point, Photo.net'sureum is nearly as dead as this one.</em><br /> Not sure I understand this remark</p> </blockquote> <p>Sorry, editing error. "The photo.net nature forum is nearly as dead as this one."</p> <p>And you wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p>The only people likely to be interested in a special macro photography forum are advanced amateurs and professionals working in scientific photography, who are relatively few in number and who NEED to get involved with terminology and the mechanics of image formation at a fairly profound level (NOT because they are idle trouble-makers casually playing with semantics), which would undoubtedly put off the casual reader.</p> </blockquote> <p>On the one hand, the likely best way to learn is to buy a book on photomacrography. Bulletin boards like photo.net are useful but aren't suited to, um, deep discussions. They're for short incomplete answers and are infested with people who want to be helpful but don't know enough to shut up.</p> <p>On the other, http://www.photomacrography.net/</p>

<p>Edward, when folks on APUG discussed whether to create a macro forum I predicted that it would get little traffic. Unfortunately I was right. Given APUG's experience I doubt the problem is semantics.</p> <p>Further on that point, Photo.net's nature forum is nearly as dead as this one. I'm not aware that it defines "nature photography" narrowly.</p> <p>I haven't looked for them but wouldn't be surprised to learn that there are better sites for people who feel they need to learn technique or want to share what they've done.</p>

<p>From Brian Bracegirdle's pamphlet Scientific PhotoMACROgraphy, #31 in the Royal Microscopal Society's Microscopy Handbooks series:</p> <blockquote> <p>The production of images magnified in the range of x1 to x50 is the traditional preserve of photomacrography. Below x1 ordinary photographic equipment can be used to make close-up photographs, and above x50 the compound microscope is used to make photomicrographs.</p> </blockquote> <p>On another topic entirely, David, two of the best lenses I've owned for working in the range 1:5 to 5:1 are the 100/6.3 Reichert Neupolar and the 90/6.3 CZJ Mikrotar, both reversed tessar types. B&L made a line of MicroTessars, with focal lengths from 16 mm to 158 mm, all Tessars. Tessars computed for closeup work can be good at it, tessars computed for work at distance are another matter. But the key attribute is asymmetry.</p> <blockquote> </blockquote>

<p>Bob, I no longer know who owns photo.net or how the owner uses it to make money. But I'd bet that the owner somehow earns a lot more from the images stored here than from the forums.</p>

<p>Too buggy, withdrawn.</p> <p>Obnoxious, too, but that's just my opinion.</p>

<p>RJ, how about Aldis, Ross, and Watson?</p> <p>I agree with you, SOL could well be a store brand.</p> <p>I suspect you're thinking of 1970s lenses badged Dollond. Are you sure they were made in the UK? Imports from Japan seem more likely.</p>

<p>I have no idea where you're located. What I do know is the sellers on ebay.com offer replacement bellows without bellows frames for Horseman VH cameras for around $100 plus shipping. They should, but I could be mistaken, fit the 790.</p> <p>If I were you and wanted to use a 2x3 Horseman I'd go to ebay, find transaction prices for VH series Horseman cameras, and then offer the seller 2/3 of the median prices less $100. I'd offer that little because the seller has already lied to you. </p> <p>If he won't sell for that little and you want to use a 2x3 Horseman, buy from someone else.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Mark, I doubt that any of y'r treasures are process lenses, even if the seller claimed they were. Process lenses are typically distortionless and anachromatic. Yours are all all too fast to be either. If they are in barrel, they might be enlarging lenses.</p> <p>Photographs wouldn't hurt.</p>

<p>Teddy, reshuttering a lens requires obtaining a shutter that will accept its cells. If the cells are not direct fits in a standard shutter, then adapters are required. Shutters aren't free, neither are adapters.</p> <p>In my experience, lenses in barrel whose cells are not direct fits in a standard shutter cost more to put in shutter than an equivalent lens already in shutter. The same goes for lenses in shutters that seem standard but aren't really. Two examples:</p> <p>The 58/5.6 Grandagon/Technikon is in a Synchro Compur #00 with no "T" speed (this is typical of post-WW II #00s) and no cable release socket. The lens was made for rangefinder cameras that have a device on the lens board that holds the end of a cable release. Using the lens on a view camera or Graphic requires replacing the shutter and scaling the replacement. Been there, done that.</p> <p>The 58 and 60 mm lenses for Koni Omega/Rapid Omega/Omegaflex cameras are in a funny Copal #0 with no cable release socket, no "T" speed and the shutter release protruding from the rear of the camera. The lenses can be cocked off the camera. can't be fired if simply put on, e.g., a Graphic board. Again, a new/used Copal/Compur/Prontor #0 that will have to be rescaled is needed to make the lens usable. Been there, done that.</p> <p>These days people are stripping cells from Copal/Compur/Prontor #1 shutters, repurposing the shutters, and selling the cells. Buying the cells and then buying a shutter and having it rescaled to suit nearly always costs more than the equivalent lens in shutter. Haven't done that but I've done the costing exercise, and more than once.</p> <p>You mentioned that some lenses for 6x7 and 6x8 might be useful on MFDBs. No doubt you're right. That, however, doesn't mean that they'll be generally useful on 2x3 and larger film formats. Remember that not everyone who uses press, technical and view cameras shoots with an MFDB.</p> <p>That you have eight of the things makes me wonder why you care at all about economy. </p>

<p>Charles, post-WW II there was indeed a shutter standard. Compur and Prontor set it, Copal adopted it. Also, some makers made #000 shutters.</p> <p>OP, look here for a larger list of shutter specifications: http://www.suaudeau.eu/memo/pratique/Les_obturateurs_centraux.html</p> <p>OP, a number of people have posted recently on LFPF and Apug about rescuing lenses in the infernal Fuji GX shutter. Its a fool's errand. The lenses are good but nothing special and equivalent lenses already in shutter cost less than acquiring a GX lens and reshuttering it.</p> <p>If you want to spend your time and money on the exercise, enjoy yourself but don't pretend you're doing it for economy. </p>

<p>If I wasn't clear, shutters aren't inexpensive. There's a law of nature to the effect that every used shutter needs overhaul. More expense. Photographers' machinists don't work for free. Still more expense. </p> <p>A modern 210 lens in shutter plus a shutter overhaul will cost less than shutter, overhaul and machining. </p> <p>In general, lenses whose cells aren't direct fits in a modern shutter are poisoned gifts.</p>

<p>To learn more about your lens, go here http://www.arnecroell.com/publications, scroll down and click on <strong><strong><a href="http://www.arnecroell.com/czj.pdf">Carl Zeiss Jena large format lenses 1945-1991</a></strong></strong></p> <p>If you do this and read the pdf, you'll learn that your lens probably can't be put in shutter without machining. Given the costs of decent 210 mm lenses in shutter, your treasure is probably best used as a paperweight. </p> <p>To make sure, unscrew the cells from the barrel and measure the barrel's length and the cells' threading (diameter, pitch). Go here http://www.skgrimes.com/products/new-copal-shutters/standardcopals to find standard Compur/Copal shutters' dimensions (tube lengths, threading) and here http://www.suaudeau.eu/memo/pratique/Les_obturateurs_centraux.html for more shutters' dimensions.</p>

<p>Jochen, y'r question is closely related to "which set of focal lengths is in some sense or other best?"</p> <p>I bought my first 35 mm camera, a Nikkormat FTn, in 1970. It came with a nice brochure, a short tutorial on photography, that contained a discussion of which lenses to buy. Nikon's recommendation then was "normal" first and then "normal" times integral powers of two.</p> <p>We know that 24 x 36's diagonal is 43 mm, so by the convention used for formats not derived from cine formats that's the normal focal length for 35 mm still. But by another convention, the normal focal length for 35 mm still is 50 mm. Following the second convention, Nikon's recommendation means 25 mm, 50 mm, 100 mm, 200 mm, ... </p> <p>I took Nikon's advice, eventually had 24, 55, 105 and 200 mm lenses for my Nikkormat. I later added a 35, found it very useful for situations where 55 was too long and 24 too short. I don't know what drove others' decisions back then,. Not all makers offered 24 mm lenses for SLRs in the early '70s and 24 was then seen as ultrawide.</p> <p>Back then the photography magazines couldn't agree on whether 28 mm or 35 mm was the better focal length for situations where 50 mm was too long and 24 mm too short. To the extent that there was a consensus, it preferred 35 mm. 28 was usually seen as too close to 24. Similarly, there wasn't agreement about which focal length was right for portraits. 85 or 100 or 135? To the extent that there was a consensus, 135 was somewhat of a bastard. A little long for portraits, too short for wildlife and, um, stealth portraiture on the street. I found 105 ideal for shooting people who knew I was taking their picture.</p> <p>Where have the bread and butter primes gone? Kit zooms killed 'em and the airlines didn't help. I'm contemplating getting a DSLR. Finally. D810 or Df. Put one in my Pelican case with my primes (still 24, 55, 105 and 200) and that's my larger piece of carry-on baggage. This is limiting. I can't justify putting a $3k (or so) camera in checked baggage. So limiting that the little voice in the back of my mind won't stop telling me that I'll be able to travel more comfortably if I give up on wildlife and get the 24-120/4. Alternatively, give up on a DSLR and get, e.g., a Panasonic DS50.</p>

<p>Hmm. Nikon claims that the lens covers 154 mm at f/4.5, 235 mm at f/22,</p> <p>David, your shot was taken with the lens off center. What aperture did you shoot it at?</p>

<p>5" x 5"? Can't be used with a normal ordinary 4x5 camera such as I have? Why should I want it unless I can trim it to fit?</p> <p>The 4x4 thingy that can be used with a 4x5 camera has more appeal.</p> <p>Prices? Specifications? Can't think rationally about these devices without knowing how much they'll cost and what they can do.</p>

<p>Great! The more the better!</p>

<p>Eileen, Steve's probably right. That is, the market for Ektras and accessories including lenses is probably thin. Not because of lack of collector interest but because not many were made and they don't come to market that often.</p> <p>I've looked at eBay listings, only one sold, a beat up 90/3.5.</p> <p>I can understand y'r financial stress and hopes of having, um, buried treasure. You might, but not much of it. Your best bet is to post the lenses on eBay with as many good pictures as you can at a reasonable starting price. And then accept what comes. I'd start 'em around $300. If no bids, relist at $250. And so on.</p> <p>Do check the back of the Ektanon. It might be in Ektra mount. If so its rear will look like the 50/1.9's rear.</p>

<p>Isn't the OP's 50/1.9 Ektar the fast normal lens for the Ektra 35 mm camera?</p>

<p>Chareles, you're right. I have a couple of late Graphic/Graflex shells with pin rollers.</p> <p>In addition, SKGrimes offers a pin rollering service.</p>

<p>Learn to feed yourself. Failing that, buy the wretched things, run film through them, and measure the areas exposed.</p> <p>Modern (ones that use 120 film) roll holders made by Graflex Inc, predecessors and successors, have two major assemblies. Film carriage and shell.</p> <p>Carriages came in two flavors, ignoring the gearing that controls how much film is advanced per shot. Knob wind and lever wind. The two are functionally equivalent and there's little basis for choice between them.</p> <p>Shells for nominal 2.25" x 3.25" (6x9 is a terrible metric approximation to 2.25x3.25) come in two flavors. RH-8, with pin rollers and a 56 x 78 mm gate and older (Graphic and Graflex) with no pin rollers and a 56 x 82 mm gate.</p>

<p>Mark Fewtrell wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p>That's interesting Pete. I really just wanted the back to take one undivided picture. I had in mind to use it for plates.</p> </blockquote> <p>Hacksaw? Milling machine?</p>

<p>Mark, the Sirchie cameras have sliding backs that allow two shots per frame. Probably not exactly what the Linhof Bob's talking about does.</p> <p>Yes, the UK and US have different judicial systems. Police stations are, if you will, the intake. They take mug shots when booking prisoners. I expect that UK police do much the same, could be mistaken.</p>

<p>Are you sure the camera was used only in prisons? </p> <p>I ask because the US equivalent, made by Sirchie Fingerprint Laboratories and also fixed focus, was used by many police departments. These beasties were made in two sizes, for 2x3 and 4x5, and have dividing backs that allowed two shots per frame. I suppose the shots were head on and side views. I've never seen one with a hand grip, they were usually mounted on a studio stand or a tripod.</p>