david4

If you buy a lens with 82 mm filter you will end up paying a lot more

for filters (especially a center gradient filter) than if you stuck

with lenses requiring 67 mm filters. There are quite a quite number of

other lenses using 67 m

Maybe I am wrong. I am not an expert. I just want to convey to you

what I understood after reading comments by earlier contributors.If

your camera uses a small lensboard (96 x 99 mm) with tapered bellows,

you may want to consider a compact 300/f9 mm lens, easily stashed in a

pocket of your camera bag/backpack, while if your lensboard is large

(e.g., 140 x 140 mm), and could never fit in the pocket, maybe you

would be more inclined to buy a brighter but bulkier 300/f5.6 lens.

Camera bellows tapered to fit a 96 x 99 mm lensboard are unable to

accept lenses the rear element of which has a diameter larger than 80

mm. Best of luck in your search.

All of these lenses are very compact and light -- all use No. 1

shutter. All adequately cover 4 x 5. All of these lenses have f/9 or

smaller maximum apertures. Depending on your eyesight (those over 50

usually have greater difficulty with dim light than adults under 30),

you may find it difficult to focus in low contrast areas when light

levels fall to 6, 7s, perhaps even 8 EV. Focussing may also prove

difficult if you attach a polaroid filter (- 2 f-stops). Apo Ronar 300

mm lens uses a 49 mm filter. Convenient filter match to 135 mm

Rodenstock S lens, another compact and popular lens for landscape

photography. My understanding is that Apo Ronar 300 mm does not cover

8 x 10 at infinity, but perhaps I am mistaken. Optimized at 1:1 but

outstanding at infinity. All the color saturation you could hope for.

I don't know whether your 4 x 5 Linhof camera with narrow neck bellows

can accept bulkier 300 mm 5.6 lens. Apo Ronar 300 lens easy to sell on

consignment. Schneider G-Claron 305 mm has the most coverage for 8 x

10 among these f9+ lenses.Superb saturation. Optimized at infinity but

does great at 1:1. Likewise easy to sell on consignment. I have never

seen anyone claim they can tell the difference in a print made with

Apo Ronar and that made by G-Claron, Nikkor, Fuji, etc, but possibly

there might be a visible difference between Apo-Symmar-S or

Apo-Sironon-S and these f/9 lenses. Talk to Bob Salomon, at HP

Marketing, distributor of Rodenstock lenses. If you have ever seen

prints made by Edward Steichen, you might change your mind about the

desirability of a sharp lens -- Steichen made stunning landscape

images with diffuse lenses. Purchase price of G-Claron is close to Apo

Ronar. Japanese lenses usually have substantially lower purchase

prices. A lot of Pros are very enthusiastic fans of these lenses (e.g,

John Saxon, Craig Wells). If you want more saturation, detail, etc.,

you will get more bang for buck by going to larger 8 x 10 format than

by fretting over which len

You are more likely to use 10 mm or more rise with a 90 mm, 110, or

115 mm lens than with longer lenses, such as 180, 210 or 300 mm. I

found the standard bellows unacceptably restrictive in lens movement

with these wide angle lenses at infinity focus. I bet you will prefer

using the bag bellows a lot with 115 mm or less focal length lens. I

wisg I knew how to stop the cut off at the end of this n

For the wedge, I used a Johnson & Johnson cotton swab commonly used to

remove ear wax. It is made of a white plastic tube about three inches

long and one-eighth inch diameter, with cotton at each end. It is a

perfect fit with the TK4

I eliminated the Supercreen warping by inserting compressible

cue-sticks between the screen and the overhanging edges of the TK45

fram

Any book showing the black and white photographs of EDUARD J.

STEICHEN. Many of his portraits and landscapes are absolutely

stunning. He mastered use of light and shade -- a photographer of

immense artistic talen

I checked Linhof's and HP's webpage, as well as other webpages, and

found nothing regarding the availability by subscription in the United

States of Linhof's magazine, Photo Technik International (German

edition). The English version was canceled in 1998. I would appreciate

any information you have as to its availability in the United States,

the annual subscription price, and address. I thank you in advance.

Regards,

I meant G-Claron, not M-Claron. I also wanted to add that Nikkor and

Fuji lenses always get favorable web comments, but to my knowledge,

have not recently upgraded their lenses. I am unclear whether there is

any material difference in multicoating or lens design that inherently

provides one lens an advantage. Some web comments say that the

Schneider 110/XL is a fantastically sharp lens, but others say the

Apo-Sironar 135/5.6 lens has better MTF curves. Good luck and re

Check p. 67 of Nov/Dec 2000 edition of View Camera magazine. Badger

Graphic ad. They are selling the 80/4.5 XL for $1295. The web site is

www.badgergraphic.com. I imagine that a declne of the eurodollar has

somthing to do with the low price. You can get the 110/XL from

overseas dealers for about the same price. Check robert white, uk.

Good luck and reg

You may be able to make up your mind by looking at images identical to

those you describe, taken with a 135/5.6 lens, as shown at

www.TranquilityImages.Com. Also, check www.badgergraphics.com for

prices. I believe Badger Graphics has a sale of the Apo-Sironar-S

135/5.6 for $625 and the 150/5.6 for $660. The filter size for the

Apo-Sironar-S 135/5.6 is 49 mm, the same size as that used an

Apo-Ronar 300/f9 and Schneider M-Claron 210/f9. Step up adapter rings

can be used if your 210 and 300 lenses are of the type that require 67

mm filters. The Apo-Sironar-S 135/5.6 has slightly more coverage and

weight than the Schneider or Fuji lenses. Nikon's 135/5.6 lens

requires a 52 size filter, which might be preferred by you if you have

a 35 mm camera system with lots of 52 mm lens filters. The consensus

of web comments is that that the 135/5.6 lenses in general are among

the least expensive and most durable, compact, sharpest, and lightest

lenses that you can own. When used in conjunction with a 120 mm roll

film back, the 150/5.6 for head and shoulder portraits might possibly

be preferred by you. My understanding is that the 150/5.6 is the

normal lens for a 4 x 5, equivalent to 50 mm in the 35 mm format, and

that the 135/5.6 is equivalent to a 45 mm focal length in the smaller

format. You can probably find equivalency tables on the web. I suspect

that more 150/5.6 lenses may be sold than 135/5.6 lenses overall, and

preserve greater resale value, but I do not know. For landscape

photography, I predict that the 135/5.6 would likely be used more

often by you than the 150/5.6, because of the greater ability of the

135/5.6 to ensure that near and far are in focus. My understanding is

that the Nikon, Fuji, Schneider and Rodenstock lenses may differ as to

which lens is optimized at infinity, but I doubt that you will any

difference when the lens apertures are closed down in the range of

f/16 to f/32. I have never read any web comments saying that the

unaided eye can detect any visible difference in 11 x 14 or 16 x 20

prints taken with any of these lenses. The product manufacturer

representatives and their adcertisements claim significant improvement

from the predecessor designs to the latest designs (e.g., Schneider-S

to Schneider XL; Apo-Sironar-N to Apo-Sironar S), and there appears to

be some support in web comments as to those claims. Considering that

some of the best landscape photographers used ancient lenses with a

pleasing softness, I would be skeptical of using MTF curves or

sharpness as the sole criterion. You certainly would see far more

sharpness and detail moving up from 4 x 5 to 8 x 10 than changing from

o

Your best bet for a complete answer is to contact Linhof's product

representative, Bob Salomon (bobsalomon@mindspring.com).

What's new in large format lenses, cameras, film, etc. introduced at

Photokina 2000? I searched for websites on this subject without

success. I look forward to your response. Thank

The web page is

http://aolsearch.aol.com/dirsearch.adp?knf=1&query=large%20formAT%20HO

ME%20PAGE%20

Check out the website of Foveon, Inc. of Santa Clara, CA. It shows an

8 foot (96 inch) tall photograph captured with a 35 mm version of the

16 megapixel sensor chip. It will blow your mind. Hassleblad will be

making MF camera with an enlarged version of this ch

A comparison of MTF/contrast quality of 210 mm lenses woud be helpful.

For example, does the G-Glaron f/9 210 mm with aperture set at f/22

provide MTF curves at infinity focusing comparable to the f5.6

Apo-Symmar with aperture closed down to as low as f/8? Does the 210

f5.6 XL provide superior MTF's to the Apo-Symmar, and if so, how

significantly? How much better if at all is the G-Claron or 210 XL at

1:1 than the 5.6 Apo-Symmar? At what size print enlargement are the

advantages if any readily detectable to the nak

Some key information has to be revealed for a buyer to determine

whether it is worth the extra money to buy a Linhof lens. (1) What

percent of lenses that are inspected by Linhof pass its tests? If 99%

pass the test, I would conclude my chances of getting as good a lens

are very high, even if not Linhof tested. (2) At what size enlargement

does the Linhof lens show significant enhanced image (resolution,

contrast, saturation, color fidelity) compared to a non-Linhof lens?

If the differences are not apparent until the image is enlarged to 5 x

7 feet, I would see any need to buy the Linhof lens. (3) Is the

technical data (MTF, etc.) the same for the Linhof and non-Linhof

lenses? If so, there is less reason to buy the Linhof lens. (4) Since

the Linhof-rejected lens passed the original lens manufacturer's

quality control tests, this suggests that Linhof accepts lesser

variation from optimum quality than the original manufacturer. How

much is the variation at which the original manufacturer will allow

the lens to pass its tests? If the accepted deviation is small enough,

there is less reason to value Linhof's pass-fail criteria. (5) How

much does the Linhof name help with respect to the resale of the lens?

I wonder whether the price for a used Linhof lens would merge with

that of a used Caltar. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

Wayne Crider (waynec@apt.net) kindly asked me by e-mail if I had

considered rearward extension. I had not. The TK S 45 can be racheted

rearwards past the O marking. Perhaps this is the explanation for the

different descriptions of TK's extension capabilities. xxxxxxx xxxxx

xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxx

The Rodenstock Apo-Sironar S f/5.6 and Schneider Apo-Symmar 135 mm and

150 mm lenses are reputedly among the sharpest lenses available for

landscape photography. You can look at published data provided by the

lens manufacturers to verify this. Possibly a local dealer has someone

on its staff who knows how to interpret and explain this data. I would

guess that the 150 mm focal length lens may be more popular than the

135 mm lens. They are about equal in price. The 150 mm lens is

equivalent to a 50 mm lens in the 35 mm format, while the 135 mm lens

is equivalent to about a 45 mm lens in the smaller format. The

Rodenstock 135 Apo-Sironar lens has more coverage than the Schneider

135 mm lens Apo-Symmar and allows about an additional 1 cm rise. I do

not know how their coverage compares to that of their predecessors,

the non-Apo series. The non-Apo Rodenstock and Schneider lenses

mentioned by you are still available and usually sold and resold at

lesser prices (several hundreds of dollars less). Check out images

taken by Craig Wells at TranquilityImages.com taken with a 135 mm

lens. The 135 mm lens serves as a mild wide angle and sells in the USA

for about $1200-1400 less and is more compact than the 110 XL wide

angle HM-lens made by Schneider. Rodenstock's Apo-Sironar S 135 mm

lens takes a 49 mm filter and weighs only 240 grams (about a 1/2 lb).

Virtually all field cameras can use the 135 mm lens without changing

from a normal to a wide angle bellows. Some cameras require a wide

angle bellows for a 110-115 focal length lens. I do not know about the

filter size for the Schneider 135 mm lens but I suspect it takes a 49

mm filter. Nikon's 135 lens takes a 52 mm filter. If you use step

rings, it may not matter to you what size is the filter. I suspect

that you would might see a difference in sharpness/contrast/ quality,

because the 135 mm lens allows greater depth of field compared to the

150 mm lens and there are mathematical formulas for calculating lens

resolution which seem to favor the 135 mm over the 150 mm lens, all

other things being equal. However, I have not compared the 150 with

the 135 mm lenses, and my opinion is really speculation. For 6 x 7 cm

format, the 150 mm lens might better serve as a head and shoulder

portrait lens, when your objectve is to have the background out of

focus. I suggest that you contact a Rodenstock or Schneider product

representative and see if

Bob Salomon wrote that the TK S 45 has a 20 inch bellows for lenses up

to 500 mm and can take lenses as short as 35mm. However, an HP

Marketing Corp/Linhof advertisement at p. 34 of July/August edition of

View camera says that the TK S 45 extends only 19 inches. A previous

advertisement in the January/February edition at p. 3 states that the

extension is 20 inches and handles from 45 wide angle to 500 mm

telephoto. I believe, but am uncertain, that the TK S 45 extends 485

mm (19.09 inches), not 500 mm. Twenty inches is 508 mm. Possibly the

lens board can be fitted with some extender that allows use of a 500

normal focal length lens. It is my understanding that the 35 mm lens

covers only a portion of a 4 x 5 inch format but can provide full

coverage for 6 x 7 cm and perhaps 6 x 9 cm format. It is also my

understanding that there are some telephoto lenses of 600 or 720 mm

focal length that possibly can be used with the TK 45 S. Some of the

non-telephoto 480 mm lenses have too large a rear element to fit the

TK S 45, but the Nikkor M 450 mm lens will fit. However, you would

have to shoot only at or near infintity focusing with the 450 mm

Nikkor M lens, because there is not much remaining bellows or monorail

extension for closer focusing. The advertised weight of the TK S 45 is

said to be 6.4 lbs, but some web page contributor recently posted a

message saying that his TK S 45 camera weighed about a lb more.

Hopefully, Bob Salomon can clarify this. He is the Linhof Product

Representative for HP Marketing (US distributor of Linhof products)

whom I regard, and I believe most would agree, as the most

knowledgeable expert on Linhof contributing to these web pages. Go

In selecting your lenses, I suggest that you consider whether you want

all of them to have the same filter size. The highly acclaimed

Schneider XL 110 mm and Rodenstock f/4.5 75 mm lens each are best used

with an extra-wide 67 mm filter. The Rodenstock Apo-Sironar f/5.6 S

135 mm lens and Schneider 210 mm f/9 G-Claron each use a 49 mm filter.

There numerous combinations of lenses that require a normal 67 mm

filt

For a first choice lens, the 135, 150, or 210 mm would be excellent

choices. I highly recommend that you look at the web site of Craig

Wells (www.TranquilityImages.com). Wells uses exclusively the

Schneider 210mm f/5.6 Apo-Symmar Lens and Nikkor-W 135mm f/5.6 Lens.

As an alternative you may want to consider the Schneider 210mm f/9

G-Claron and Rodenstock 135 mm Apo-Sironar-S, which both take 49 mm

filters. The Rodenstock weighs 240 grams (approximately a half pound),

about 10% more than the Nikkor lens chosen by Wells, but with

significantly more coverage permitting almost 1 cm additional lens

shifting. The Nikkor accepts 52 mm filters. The Schneider Apo-Symmar

135 and 150 mm lenses and the Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S 135 and 150 mm

lenses might well be the sharpest lenses available. There are a lot of

favorable reviews of the G-Claron 210 mm lens posted at this web site.

It is much more compact and lighter than the Schneider f/5.6 210 mm

Apo-Symmar lens preferred by Craig Wells and is excellent as a closeup

lens for 1:1 reproduction provided that your camera permits 420 mm

bellows extension. You likely will find that the f9 lens is bright

enough for focussing accurately at ambient light levels of EV7 or

more, and perhaps at lower EV levels if age has not taken its toll and

diminished your ability to see well in low light. However, a fair

percentage of photographers prefer the brighter f/5.6 lens and find it

ea

I just learned about the availability of 5x loupes with built in

diopters. Before I commit myself, I wondered if anyone has any

positive or negative comments about this class of loupes. The Leica 5x

loupe seems to provide superb resolution, but costs a lot more and is

much heavier than the 4x Rodenstock loupe that I now have, and will

require capping to protect the glass at the ground glass end when in

storage. I examined another brand that was comparable in compactness

and weight to the 4x loupe and nearly matches it in price, but seems

to lack the diopter range that I need. I have not tried any 5x loupe

on a ground glass. Is it easier to focus on ground glass with a 5x

than a 4x loupe? Many of the web articles indicate a strong preference

for a 4x loupe, but occasionally I see references to 6, 8 or 10x

preferences. I have never seen any comparison of 5x loupe with

The answers were helpful. I lacked matches but found that Q-tips, with

the ends cut off, served nicely....