jnorman1

sheldon - i have never seen a kit for 11x14, but only a couple of

things are fixed determinants in the construction of a lf camera body

- the back, and the bellows. i imagine you have looked at bender's

camera kits, so you have a good idea of the basic overall

construction scheme. the key is finding a sturdy metal spring-loaded

back with holders, and a set of bellows long enough to accommodate

the lenses you want to use. (you can find vendors for such items in

shutterbug magazine.) then you design the rest of the body to conform

to the back and bellows, based loosely around what you have

discovered about how other 11x14s are constructed and shaped - there

are no rules - think of the people who built the mammoth-plate

cameras of the 19th century, each one designed from scratch and

unique. such a project can be a challenging, and therefore, very

rewarding experience.

raven - a 150 is a very good all around lens, and can certainly

handle the task you outlined. if you plan to shoot any landscapes,

or architecture, this focal length will be a bit too long, so you

might consider a 135mm - my favorite mid-focal length lens that will

do almost anything. many people use a 210 as a "normal" lens, but

that is what i use for my "telephoto" in my architecture work. 210mm

is an excellent choice if close-ups and still-lifes are your goal.

the Symmar is several years old now. it was replaced in the early 80s

(?) by the Symmar S, and then replaced again by the current APO

Symmar. a 210/5.6 symmar s in near mint condition might be worth

$500, though you might find a better deal from an individual than

from a retailer.

steve - you didnt say where you are, but most large cities have a

specialty B/W outfit that can do archival processing and whatever

size enlargements you may need. all of my work must be archival for

the various reposiitories that it goes to, so, over the years i have

made special arrangements with a variety of vendors. here in salem,

oregon, i use a group called "photovision" that i have worked with

for about 10 years for all my archival fiber-base printing. it took

me almost two years of coordination with their printer to get exactly

what i need, but since that time, i have been very satisfied with

their work.

there are both single- and multi-coated versions of this lens out

there, so know what you are buying before you make an offer. a

really good condition SA90/8 MC can be had for around $400-500. the

single-coated version is usually closer to $325-$400. there are a

couple of them available on eBay auction right now (9/20/99). they

are both excellent. remember, your main concern in purchasing any

older lens is not usually the glass, it's the shutter. btw, you can

check the serial number of any schneider lens on their website and

find out when the lens was made.

jean - the linhof technika will do almost any job you can throw at

it, and as you say, it is a wonderfully crafted machine. however, i

do architectural and engineering recordation for a living, and have

tried many camera systems over the years, and i decided long ago that

the fastest, most efficient, and (most importantly) most durable

system for my regularly rough field location work is a cambo monorail

camera due to its industrial-quality construction, ease-of-use and

complete flexibility. to further enhance usability, i have a reflex

finder rather than a cloth, i use readyloads so i can carry 120 negs

at a time, and i carefully selected my tripod for an appropriate

weight-to-strength ratio (i often must carry my equipment long

distances, up cliffs, and in a variety of difficult terrain). bottom

line - let your work requirements dictate the basic equipment type,

and let your personal aesthetic make the final selection.

jean - to answer your question about a formula to calculate the

angles: no, there is no standard formula, since this factor is

dependent upon the lens design and number of elements. from my

communication with the schneider folks, even the specs they list for

image circle are somewhat subjective, depending upon percentage of

noticeable distortion using test patterns at a given distance from

lens center, and loss of illumination. if you have a question about

a specific lens, it is best to call the manufacturer directly - they

are usually quite helpful and certainly the most knowledgable.

andreas - i would add to the previous answers that familiarity with

one's equipment is a key ingedient to success at understanding what

you will get on film. when you do nothing but walk around for 20

years with a 35mm camera and a 50mm lens, you get pretty good at

knowing what you are going to see when you put that thing up to your

eye. the same thing goes for a 4x5 - if you use it consistently, you

will get good at it, and if you only pull it out occasionally, you

will almost always find it awkward. because of that, it is a good

idea for any serious photgrapher to focus on a particluar format, and

even specific subject matter, and avoid trying to be the master of

small, medium, and large formats - it is hard enough to do just one

type of photography properly. if your chosen subject matter is

active, obviously you would want to utilze small, versatile

equipment. medium format is an excellent compromise for those who

wish to pursue a variety of subjects in a high-quality way, and can

easily produce extreme enlargements. however, if your subject matter

is fixed (architecture, landscape, etc), there is no substitute for

the quality that large format can offer.

while the aperture adjustment on each of my other lenses has a certain amount of tension/stiffness (ie, it takes some effort to move the lever, and it tends to stay where you put it), the adjustment on my nikkor sw 90/8 is quite loose - the lever offers little or no resistance, so it is easily knocked out of adjustment if you happen to brush your finger against it when you cock the shutter. the problem is exacerbated since the lens is mounted on a recessed board and it is already tricky enough to access the controls (at f22, the lever is inconveniently located directly behind the cocking arm, and is quite a pain on occasion). is there anything i can do to address this problem? thanks.

the back side of the copal #0 shutter on my nikkor sw 90/8 (the surface which rests immediately adjacent to the lens board) is presenting an odd problem in mounting the lens. on the back side of the shutter, you can see the control ring for the aperture adjustment. this ring is held in place by a smaller ring with three small screws - this smaller ring also serves to offset the lens from the lens board by a small amount to allow for movement of the aperture adjustment. however, also present in this outer ring is a small set screw which extends out from the ring and will not allow me to mount the lens flush with the lens board. what is this set screw for, and why does it stick out like this? what is the solution? thanks.

below is a list of some film scanners, with a couple of current

prices. as pointed out above, the microtek is one of the lowest

priced units that can handle 4x5 (more like $2500 than $1000,

however). it should be evident from the price that this unit is not

technically comparable with units such as the leafscan or the nikon.

 

<p>

 

4x5" Film Scanners:

 

<p>

 

Kodak PCD Scanner 4045

Leaf Leafscan 45

Microtek ScanMaker 45t - $2750

Nikon LS-4500AF - $8995

Polaroid SprintScan 45 - $8849

 

<p>

 

Large Format Scanners:

 

<p>

 

Agfa SelectScan Plus

Agfa DuoScan

Agfa Horizon Ultra

Linotype-Hell Topaz

Scitex Smart 342/342L

Scitex Smart 720/730 Plus

there are several high-quality negative scanners available. however,

none of them are what i would consider affordable for individuals,

since they are typically designed for professional graphic use. i

might suggest that you consider visiting your best local graphics

house, and make an arrangement with them based on how many negs you

will be bringing them on a regular basis. no upfront costs, no

maintenance costs, and you are getting the services of a professional

that makes sure it is done right every time.

how are you planning to print your images? in my business, it is

essential that i produce archival b/w prints. is there any

electronic printing process and paper selection for digital printing

that can rival the print quality or cost-per-print of a normal fiber-

base silver print?

this lens will perform admirably at its unconverted length, but will

suffer somewhat at the converted length, common to all of the

schneider convertibles. the optical quality of the symmar is

excellent. a more important consideration for a lens of this vintage

is the quality of the shutter. generally, it is a more reasonable

investment to purchase newer lenses just to increase your faith in

the reliability of the shutter - the only thing that is likely to

fail on you in the field.

every one of the schneider apo-symmar lenses in the normal range are

exceptional. they are state-of-the-art. the earlier symmar-s lenses

were, and are, likewise superlative. even the older symmars were

very nice lenses, and i would only caution against them because of

the older shutters they are typically mounted in.

kenny - not everyone agrees on this subject, and you need to find

what works for you. i have used the kodak readyload system for

several years, and i like it. i did have one of the holders fail on

me on an out-of-town job, and came back with 60 or so blank negatives

- the little metal tab that is supposed to hold the film in while you

pull the dark slide portion out was failing to catch. on the other

hand, i have shot probably over 10,000 negatives using that system,

and i do not wish to switch. i have read that the fuji holder may be

better, but it only holds a single neg per packet. i would hesitate

to try and mix systems, such as using kodak film in a fuji holder,

etc. also, while polaroid is fun, is quite helpful in certain

studio situations, and can be an excellent medium in its own right,

it is a huge pain in the field, and often tells you nothing helpful

about exposure, especially if you are shooting b/w. otherwise, if

you prefer fuji film, try their system, and if you prefer kodak film,

use the kodak system.

I am considering buying a Schneider 150/5.6 APO Symmar that has a small mark on the rear lens element. The mark is about 1/8" long and is fairly well off-center. (photo available at http://www.psalm1.com/camera/ ). Will this type of flaw have any noticeable effect on the quality of my negatives?

it has been suggested to me that i use Azo POP (or maybe centennial?) for contact printing 4x5 b/w negs, rather than my normal multi-grade fiber base enlarging paper. what is POP, and why should it work better for contacts? if it is better for contacts, is it also better for enlargements? why dont i see azo or centennial papers in the B&H ad, or in the calumet catalog? does POP come in double-weight? thanks.

i am an architectural photographer, and have been using the same old workhorse rodenstock 135, nikkor sw 90, and cambo monorail for 20 years, so i am pretty out-of-touch with both equipment and lenses these days. i'm trying to pick up a good used 210 for my 4x5, and have been shopping at ebay to try and save some money. my need for such a long lens is quite rare, but critical (i must return the nice schneider i have "borrowed" for the past several years). i was hoping for a 5.6 nikkor w or similar, but they are quite expensive at around $500 in really good condition. after reading the results of recent lens testing (website referred to in some previous questions here), i feel like i may be able to consider some older, less expensive lenses without losing any particular amount of clarity "on-film". i am looking at a fujinon L series 210/5.6 in copal, but dont know this lens - can anyone tell me about the L series lenses? i am also considering one of caltar's compact lenses - the 210/6.8 HR - how good is this lens? any other suggestions, or helpful information from you equipment experts out there would be much appreciated. thanks.

again, thanks for all your information. i inquire about this focal

length for a specific reason. i occasionally have to "re-photograph"

historic "main street" images. the ones from the late 1800s appear

to have been made with an 8x10 and likely a "normal" 300mm lens,

while others were made as late as the 1930s with a 5x7 graflex, with

maybe a 210mm (those focal lengths are assumptions - if old studio

cameras actually had 350mm's or if 5x7 graflex's normally had 240mm's

or something else, please let me know.) i have been using a 135mm to

do these re-photographs, but it is too wide. my 210mm is way too

long for this - i cannot get the position, and there is too much

image compression. i hesitate to buy a 150 since it so close to my

135, but i am afraid a 180 will still be a bit too long for this

use. i felt like a 165 might be a good compromise. can i assume,

then, that there is no such lens for a 4x5?

thanks to all who answered my previous questions. it appears that a 165mm lens is, technically, the "normal" focal length for a 4x5. however, no manufacturer seems to make a 165mm for a 4x5. that focal length is available for 8x10 format, but at a high price. where can i get a reasonably priced 165mm lens for 4x5?

i am considering am older schneider-kreuznach symmar convertible lens (150mm/5.6 - 260mm, synchro-compur, serial #5299631) but am unsure if it will give me the quality i need for professional work. was this a coated lens? is there a sacrifice in image quality with a convertible lens design? schneider no longer makes this lens - why? what would be a good price for it? thanks for your comments.

in my work, i am often required to reproduce historic "main street" type photographs. since the original views have been made at different periods over the past 120 years, it is often not easy to tell what size camera and what focal length lens was used to photograph the historic view. i have been working from a basic assumption that the earlier views (1880s-1900s) would typically have been made by an 8x10 camera using a 300mm standard lens, and that many of the later views (1930s) have been photographed using a 5x7 graphlex but i dont know what the "normal" lens was for that camera. certain images seem to have been made with 4x5 press cameras with a 135mm lens. i use a 4x5 to photograph the contemporary main street view to match the historic view as closely as possible, and generally use a 135mm, but i can tell i am a bit wider than most historic views. i was wondering if anyone has any specific information on whether my assumptions are correct (that generally a "normal" lens was used, rather than a slighly wide, or slightly long lens), or what type of format/focal length would have actually been used for this kind of main-street documentation. basically, i am wondering whether to purchase a 150mm, 165mm, or 180mm lens for this type of photograph - any advice? thanks. jnorman