dan_fromm2

The 105/5.6 NW and CM W Fujinons aren't plasmats. CIs 162 and 174 mm respectively. Don't snipe in ignorance, read the specs. Link above still works. The OP has a camera with a small lens throat, has to accept what will fit.

W and NW, Joe, not SWD. Follow the link I posted, receive a little enlightenment.

105/5.6 and 125/5.6 Fujinons all cover 4x5, some with more movements than others, and should clear an MPP Mk VII lens throat. I have a 105/5.6 NW (badged W) and a 125/5.6 NW. Both have small rear cells, mount easily on 2x3 Pacemaker Graphics, lens throat 48 mm square. For Fuji lenses, see FUJINON LARGE FORMAT LENSES SORTED BY FOCAL LENGTH For links to information on most of what's available, see Where to look for information on lenses.pdf

Bob, AFAIK the 127/4.7 Tominon was the standard 5" lens on Polaroid's GelCams (various designations) and was never sold for the MP-3 or MP-4 copy stand. The MP-3 had mainly Ysarons in Prontor Press shutters, the MP-4 Tominons in barrel screwed into a diaphragmless Copal #1 Press. The longest standard lens for the MP-4 was the 135/4.5 Tominon in barrel. Much worse lens than the 127/4.5. I have no Sironars, do have a slightly hazy 135/5.6 jes' plain Symmar. On 2x3 (remember, the largest I shoot is 6x12) the Tominon is no worse than the Symmar. The 127 Tominon is a surprise. I fully expected it to be mediocre, like the MP-4 tessar type lenses. Rodenstock made tessar types. I have no idea how the 127 GelCam Tominon compares with the 135/4.5 Rodenstock sold Graflex Inc. for use on 4x5 Graphics or with the 127/4.7 Ysarex Rodenstock sold Polaroid for the 110.

You don't have to be home or awake to bid on eBay at the last minute. That's what sniping engines are for. I use Hammersnipe. HammerSnipe - HammerSnipe - FREE online auction site sniping software esniper ebay snipe site e snipe auctions ebay auction sniper site bid sniper free auction Free, works well.

John, I have one. I shoot it on 2x3, where it does very well at all distances. As far as I know it is a perfectly fine 127/4.5 Tessar type like all of the other 127/4.5 (or so) Tessar types including the well-regarded 127/4.7 Ektar. They all just cover 4x5, Bob is mistaken. Not like him, but there it is. If you have one, mount it up and try it. If you don't and want to use electronic flash, which shutter is y'r 130/7.7 KA in? I ask because if it has "X" class flash sync there are bipost-to-PC adapter cables. Paramount makes them, use Google to find them. I use one with the Flash Supermatic my 101/4.5 Ektar is in. I just looked at 127/4.5 Tominons on eBay. There's one for $25, all of the others are in or the price range of 150/6.3 and 150/5.6 Fujinons. No question that they'll cover 4x5. I too am retired and on a more-or-less fixed income so I understand y'r situation. I got my 127 Tominon years ago when they were very inexpensive. If you want a widish normal lens for 4x5 that can be used with flash, first check whether y'r 130/7.7's shutter will sync properly with electronic flash. If it will, get the cable. If not, go for a cheap 127/4.7 Tominon. If Bob's scared you away from that, give up on 5 inch lenses and go for a 150/6.3 Fuji. Good luck, have fun, Dan

Agreed. The only time that nonsense matters is when reality, i.e., what the products can do and how well they do it, changes. For all practical purposes, a Dagor is a Dagor is a Dagor. Coating makes a difference, but not a major one. The one exception is that f/9 and f/10 wide angle Dagors have more coverage than regular f/6.8ers and f/7.7ers.

RJ, you is a furriner, UK type I b'lieve. As such you're not well placed to follow the twists and turns of the corporate histories and product slates of amurrican lens makers such as C. P. Goerz American Optical Company (not to be confused with American Optical Company) and its successors. Goerz American and successors made Dagors from the beginning to the end when, as Bob mentioned, Schneider, a German firm, owned the name, trademarks, ... I'm sure that the Dagor design was recomputed many times from beginning to end. Towards the end Goerz, still under American ownership, sold the same old Dagors as Golden Dagors. See, e.g., Pacific Rim Camera Reference Library, look at the 6/59 catalog. Read the over-the-top marketing fluff in the catalog. Goerz When Schneider took over Goerz, they continued the Golden Dagor line for a while, subcontracted manufacture to Kern. It isn't clear when Goerz started coating their lenses, they should have started in the late '40s like everyone else, but Schneider's Kern Golden Dagors are coated and are said by some users to be too contrasty. Point is, the Golden Dagor isn't a resurrection. Its the same old thing. I don't have any Dagors (so-badged) may by any of the Goerz companies. My 45/9 Carl Zeiss Jena Goerz Dagor, computed after CZJ took over Goerz (German, not American) is an ok little lens. My coated Boyer Beryls, all Dagor clones if not outright copies, are all very good. So are my f/14 SOM Berthiot Perigraphes, extreme wide angle Dagor types. Many other makers made Dagor types.

Usable? Yes. Amazing? Not everyone agrees. Chrise, Dagors are not particularly vintage. You've asked a couple of short questions that require a book length answer. Or several. Buy the book. Or books. Here is a link https://1drv.ms/b/s!AggQfcczvHGNkGG_P2z8Qiyc8Qo- to a list of links to many kinds of information about, mainly, LF photography. It includes recommendations of books on LF photography. Go there, select a book or books, read it or them.

Ed. Ben thanks for reminding me that there's more to macro than flowers, insects and such, mainly in the field. Also for reminding me that although my preferred lighting techniques work well with my subjects there's an art to lighting that I usually don't think of. Funny thing that in the lab I use a digital Nikon with focus stacking to shoot preserved specimens. For some reason even though I'm convinced that where it is practical focus stacking is preferable to "one shot and done" I have trouble thinking of it as macro.

Studio flashes for closeup work? In general, not the best idea. In some situations, though, large flashes far from the subject can give better results than the small flashes close to the subject that I use. No one talks about depth of illumination, but it is a consequence of the inverse square law. With my rigs a background far behind the subject is always much darker than the subject. This doesn't make good sense for every situation. Large flash far away can fix this. In the field, however, large flash far away can be difficult to set up. I've tried this approach, with trepidation, for shooting hummingbirds. Never had good success, my most powerful flash wasn't bright enough to overpower bright ambient. Ben, if you're working in the studio with immobile subjects, why do you shoot handheld? If you suffer from tremor, using a two-axis focusing rail will give better control over focus and framing than shooting handheld. For mobile subjects, though, its handheld or don't bother.

Ed, low powered electronic flashes have very short flash durations and stop motion -- photographer's and subject's -- as long as there's no significant exposure from ambient. That's why slow film or the lowest possible ISO plus ND filter are essential.

Ed, I haven't been in the Shedd for decades. I spent time there centuries ago when I was a student. Anyway, if they still have their small aquarium room, that would be a good place to shoot fish with flash. Larger tanks are difficult, the flash-to-subject distancesare usually too large. About modern conveniences, e.g., TTL autoflash. It doesn't always work consistently when working closeup. I prefer to use pre-calibrated flashes. This is equivalent -- think about it -- to metering incident, which gives more consistent results than metering incident. I also adjusted flash power or aperture for especially dark or light subjects.

Ed, that your results have been less than stellar is a message. Its time to break out the KM and learn how to use flash closeup. Yes, I know, Kodachrome processing is gone and won't come back. So its time to grit your teeth and break out the ND filters. Alternatively, go up in format, shoot ISO 100 E6 with cameras that have leaf shutters that will sync at, ideally, 1/500. And learn how to use flash closeup. Guide number arithmetic adjusted for magnification works well.

Ed, I have thousands of shots at 1:1 done handheld out-of-doors with KM and 55 or 105 MicroNikkors on Nikon SLRs. The subjects were flowers, insects and such. The trick was to use flash illumination to stop motion, both mine and the subjects. And that many handheld shots of un- or lightly constrained live fish in aquaria, some out-or-doors in a portable photo tank, others inside. Also with KM and flash. It all worked because with KM I could shoot between f/11 and f/16 set (that's f/22 to f/32 effective) at 1/125 (Nikkormat) and, later, 1/250 (FM2n). There's a delicate balance between overpowering ambient, loss of image quality in the plane of best focus to diffraction, and loss of image quality outside of the plane of best focus to diffraction (again) and shallow depth of field. My setups killed ambient, forced stopping down a little too far. Tradeoffs, tradeoffs. This is uncomfortable to do when the image capture device, film or chip, is too sensitive. With ISO 100 a two stop ND filter is needed if ambient is to be overpowered. Three stops might be better. I dislike this so much that I've stopped shooting flowers and such. Turning up a digicam's ISO isn't what's needed for full control, low ISO with flash is better.

You're thinking of the autofocus 200/4 MicroNikkor. The manual focus ones (AI, AIS) go to 1:2 on their own mounts. The 105/2.8 MicroNikkor AI and AIS increase magnification by a combination of adding extension and reducing focal length. They go to 1:2 on their mounts, to 0.88:1 on their PN-11 (I think that's it, could be mistaken) extension tube. I can't speak to the AF versions, don't have any. I do have 55/2.8, 105/2.8, 200/4 MicroNikkors, all AIS. Why don't you look up the AF 105 MicroNikkor's properties and share with us?

Mr. Ingold wrote The 200/4 MicroNikkor AI/AIS has internal focusing and doesn't change extension as it focuses closer. It focuses closer by reducing focal length.

Mike, it was 75-200/4.5. I've had two, both bought from Porter's (remember them?) when they were closing out the line. The first example's AF was miscalibrated. The lens focused itself but not at the desired plane of best focus. I sent it back to be serviced, the store sent me another example. Its AF worked properly but the lens was a dog. I'd hoped to use it on a Super 8 cine camera for tracking birds and such. It wasn't sharp enough to use and the AF was too slow. IMO not worth the money if free. Vivitar also made a 200/3.5 Series I SCAF lens based on their 200/3.3 Series I. The 200/3.3 tested well so the 200/3.5 should shoot well but I don't know how well its self-contained AF will work.

If you want to learn the basics, get a book. Random questions that get even more random answers won't do. I recommend A. A. Blaker's Field Photography, available used for quite low prices from sellers on abebooks.com, alibris.com, amazon.com, bn.com, ...

I don't think that the 700/8 Questar has much in common with Questar's 3.5" reflecting telescope. See Questar introduction and history About Celestron C-90s. The absolutely worst lens, as incapable as delivered of producing color transparencies that I was willing to show in public, I've ever owned was the C-90 I bought in late 1978. It had terrible astigmatism, as in couldn't bring vertical and horizontal lines in focus simultaneously, Bad central hot spot. And soft soft soft. After I convinced myself that the problem wasn't operator error -- operator error can't create astigmatism or a central hot spot, can cause poor resolution -- I returned the beast to Celestron. They replaced it on warrantee. The replacement was a little better -- it seems that in those days Celestron had QC problems, had shipped my first lens without the necessary extension tubes -- but was still unusable and is the second worst lens I've owned. Modern C-90s may be better and Celestron QC may have improved. Having been burnt, and having a Q700, I'd never ever buy another C-90.

Not all mirror lenses are compact. For example, Questar JDM, why don't you get one?

Are you sure? It certainly bites, and hard, for angles of view as large as 90 degrees. To put it another way, do you mean to say that extreme wide angle lenses aren't practical? I have a weakness for them, can't agree with that proposition. If that's what you meant. Rodenstock and Schneider recommend using center filters for lenses that cover 100 degrees or more. The consensus of users on the US LF forum is that the shortest focal length that can be used with no movements on a 4x5 camera without a CF is around 90 mm. The angle of view is ~ 80 degrees. Add decentering movements or go shorter and there's no avoiding a CF. The corresponding minimum FL for 2x3, which I shoot, is around 65 mm. I sometimes shoot a 47/5.6 SA on 2x3 without a CF, whether I can get away with it depends on the subject.

RJ, Rodenstock and Schneider recommend stopping down two stops when using their center filters. When shooting reversal film with a very wide angle lens, a CF is essential. 1.6 stops down center to corner is quite a lot. There's a limit to what an image editor can recover. For a fuller discussion, please see 6x9 lens by Dan Fromm (1) (this is really a link to an article on CFs. I don't know why the PN editor substitutes irrelevant text for it, but it still works. I know, it isn't a bug, it is a feature.) You might also want to take a look at http://www.galerie-photo.com/horseman-4x5-exposure-meter.html, which prompted me to write the CF piece.

Where's the mystery? Germany traded with neutral countries. The US was one until shortly after December 7, 1941. What am I missing?

If I'm not mistaken, Ebony camera closed in 2016. I take it you're shopping for a used camera.