sol_campbell

Sandra,

<p>

Thanks so much for your quick response.

<p>

That is a shame that it won't take the 52mm adapter. A bugger. Looks

like I will have to find 48mm filters...

<p>

May I ask you how you find the 200/1.8 compares to your 300/2.8 IS?

<p>

Doesn't IS degrade quality, since it makes use of many more elements?

<p>

Thanks!

Hello,

<p>

I just bought the great 200/1.8 lens. But I have a problem. The drop in filter adapter takes only 48mm filters. These are hard to get.

<p>

Can also sells the 52mm adapter which is used in the newer IS lenses.

<p>

My question is if I buy the 52mm adapter, will I be able to use that with my 200/1.8 lens? Will it work with it?

<p>

Thanks!

Hi,

<p>

I would like to hear opinions on Leica R Telephoto lenses. I have heard that the new 180/2.8 Apo Lens is top notch according to Erwin Puts. What about the new 280/4 Apo?

<p>

Any input would be much appreciated!

<p>

Thanks!

Julio,

<p>

If you look at both, you will see the that they are the same. It is

not that easy, since Hasselblad publishes them at f4.5 and f11 and

Rodenstock publishes it at f8 and f16. But by the shape you can

conclude that it is the same.

<p>

Look at the shapw of the curves, which are quite unique. The

performance at center is much poorer than half way through the image

circle. And don't know a lot of lenses with this characteristic. But

both the Hassy and Rodenstock curves do show this.

<p>

Moreover look go to:-

<p>

http://www.hasselblad.se/products/lenses/lens_roden/index.html

<p>

And look at the picture of the shutter! It is a Copal! So Hassy won't

even give you an expensive shutter for what they charge!

<p>

So are you now convinced that it is the same lens?

<p>

:)

Glen,

<p>

Zeiss are great to publish MTF curves for all their lenses. You can

find them at www.zeiss.de. You can download a PDF file that is very

nice and has a lot more info than just the MTF curves.

<p>

Also Hasselblad too publishes the MTF curves at their web site

www.hasselblad.se.

<p>

Compare the two MTF curves. Like I said before, there is no

comparison. The 40 line curve of the Biogon is as good as the 20 line

of the Apo Grandagon!

<p>

The 35 Apo Grandagon is the poorest performer in the Grandagon

series, according to the MTF curves. The 45mm really shines and that

is much closer to the Biogon.

<p>

Thanks.

Julio,

<p>

Sorry but you are very, very wrong. The Apo Grandagon for the Hassy

is identical to one for view cameras. It is NOT for the SLRs but the

Arc Body (which has no mirror). If it was different then it would not

be called the Apo Grandagon, but something else. It would also be a

tottaly different beast, since it would have to be non rectilinear.

<p>

Moreover, the MTF curves published by Hasselblad and Rodenstock are

the same, since it is the same lens. Of course Hasselblad does

publish a 40 lines per mm curve which Rodenstock does not.

<p>

How did you come to the conclusion that the Hassy AG was completely

different?

<p>

Thanks.

Trevor,

<p>

Thanks for the info. But as mentioned before I am just after the

knowledge. I am curious. Of course I know of the Apo Grandagon 35/4.5.

<p>

But for you information, while the Apo Grandagon 35/4.5 may be one

fine lens the Biogon puts it to shame, albeit with a smaller image

circle. The 38 Biogon is one of the finest lenses ever made by Zeiss

and if you compare the MTF curves of it aginst the Rodenstock, you

will see the differnce - night and day and know what I mean.

<p>

Thanks again!

John,

<p>

Thanks but I am not after the lens for myself. I am a big Zeiss fan

but I just wanted to know more about it for the sake of knowledge!

<p>

So if anyone know about it please let me know!

<p>

Thanks!

Hi,

<p>

A while ago I posted a question about a modern T* Zeiss Planar lens for sale on E-Bay. The seller, Kerry Thalmann was very nice and gave a complete history for that lens. That lens by the way went for $3K!!!

<p>

Well I have spotted another one! This is the Biogon 38/4.5 in a Copal shutter for sale. Actually I have found two places for selling this one at around $1000-$1500. I wonder if this is the same one as in the Hasselblad SWC.

<p>

I did not know that Zeiss sold this lens in a Copal shutter for the view camera market. How does one get one?

<p>

I am curious! Can Kerry or anyone else enligten me?

<p>

Thanks!

Scott,

<p>

If you shot at f11 I would not be interested in the edge sharpness as

much as the center. That is where the film is most sloppy. What was

the sharpness at the center?

<p>

Thanks.

Nathan,

<p>

Are you talking about the Sinar "Adhesive" holders? So you could not

tell any difference. What apertures were you shooting at? That is

important, I guess.

<p>

Also you say in light you loaded exposed film. Was this processed

film?

<p>

Thanks!

Sean,

<p>

I don't shoot 8x10 much. From the shots I have taken, yes, on a few

of them I have noticed unusual focus planes. Not terrible but

definitely annoying and worse, unpredictable.

<p>

So far the response seems to suggest that my calculations are

correct. Which is very scary. I am surprised it is not addressed

more. What is the point of Schneider and Rodenstock designing these

incredible lenses, only for them to be wasted?

<p>

This will definitely make look into the Sinar Adhesive Film Holders.

I wonder why they don't make those for 4x5?

<p>

Thanks.

Hi,

<p>

Last night, while I was loading my holders with some 8x10 film, I noticed that at the center, the film was bulging quite a bit. I estimate the bulge to be 1-2 millimeters.

<p>

So today I did some calculations to see how it would affect the focus, and I was astounded by the results.

<p>

For example I calculated that a 2mm bulge would cause the focus to shift from 10 feet to 9.31 feet on a 300mm lens. On a 110mm lens the focus would shift from 10 feet all the way to 6.57 feet!

<p>

A 1mm bulge would cause the focus to shift from 10 feet to 7.93 feet on a 110mm lens.

<p>

Then I calculated what the lens need to be stopped down so that the depth of field could "cancel" this shift and the answer was f45 or smaller! Even at 1mm!

<p>

Does this sound right? Or are my calculations ways off? Is my estimate of the bulge too pessimistic?

<p>

What is the average bulge for 8x10 film? And what about 4x5?

<p>

If this indeed is the case, then film flatness is VITAL. And anything but a perfectly flat film will TOTALLY waste the capabilities of a fine modern lens.

<p>

Comments please...

Looking at the MTF charts they are ruler flat all the way to 500mm,

so I would guess 600mm at the least and maybe even 700-800mm! What do

others think?

<p>

This truly is an amazing lens. I think of all the current lenses it

is THE one with the largest coverage.

Hi,

<p>

I want to get a good macro lens for 8x10 photography. The ideal focal length would be 300-400mm.

<p>

Why don't Schneider, Rodenstock or Nikon make them? They make them for 4x5 but not 8x10. Why?

<p>

What about the Rodentstock's Apo Ronar, Schneider's G-Claron or the Nikon M. Aren't these classic desgins optimized for 1:1? If so, then why don't they call them Macro?

<p>

Please help!

<p>

Thanks!

One thing I forgot to ask. Everyone is raving about the beauty of

these Ebonies. But which one? There are so many of them. I like thier

web site, www.ebonycamera.com and there are SO many cameras! Which

one is the best looking???

<p>

Thanks for taking interest in this thread!

Well looks like Ebony is in the lead so far. I would like to see one!

But they are so darn rare!

<p>

Personally the most beautiful camera I have seen is a Tachihara 4x5.

This camera had a dark red bellows, beautiful mahogony wood and

shining golden knobs.

<p>

Y'all don't like red bellows???

Why an Ebony? They are black and look like metal cameras to me. I say

this while never having seen one in real life, just pictures!

I know this is a silly question. We use our cameras to take pictures and look at them, not the instruments we used to get them. But do I think some wooden cameras are absolutely beautiful with their brass knobs, superb wooden finishes, etc.

<p>

So which in your opinion is the most beautiful and crafted view camera?

<p>

It is a Wisner? An Ebony? A Tachihara? Or a metal Toyo :)

<p>

I apologize for this thread to be a little off topic.

Bill,

<p>

I presume you have the 800 and just the rear element for the 1200.

How do they work out? Is wind a problem? Is the 1200 as sharp as the

800? What is it like focusing at f18?

<p>

Tell us more about these monsters!

<p>

Thanks!

Glen,

<p>

Thanks for your post. One of the reasons I posted this question was

because from my own experience I found the contrary. One of my best

performing lens is a telephoto. It is the new Apo Tele Xenar Compact

400mm from Schneider. It is awesome even when used wide open at f5.6.

<p>

So I don't know why they are regarded as being inferior.

<p>

Thanks.

Staffan,

<p>

Your explaination makes sense. But still it does not explain why in

35mm telephoto lenses are the cream of the crop. Even more so when

you consider the small negative size. You would expect every flaw to

be magnified proportionally.

<p>

One question about the G-Clarons and Apo-Ronars. These are the

classic "process" lens designs. They are optimized for 1:1. Then why

don't Schneider and Rodenstock call them Macro lenses? On the

contrary each has its own line of Macro lenses which are different

from the G-Clarons and Apo-Ronars!

<p>

Thanks.

Hi,

<p>

I have seen many posts here saying, don't get a tele lens. That if you have the bellows draw, get a long lens as opposed to a telephoto lens. That tele lenses aren't as sharp or good as non-tele lenses of the same focal length.

<p>

But why? In 35mm, the big glass of Canon and Nikon are the finest. According to tests they beat all other types of lenses. They are as good wide open as stopped down. I am refering to lenses like the 200/1.8, 300/2.8 and 600/4.

<p>

In fact according to "photodo" the best lens they have ever tested is the Canon 200/1.8. And all the other big glass are pretty much runners up.

<p>

So why is it in large format tele lenses are so down played?

<p>

Thanks!

Thanks to all for the very educating information. I am a big fan of

Zeiss and I have lots of their Contax G and 645 lenses. But with

Schneider and Rodenstock making such super lenses I do not miss them

in large format.

<p>

Kerry's 135mm Planar seems a great lens and if it was for around $500-

700 I would grab it in a minute. But really it is for collectors

only. I doubt if it can be any better than a Apo Symmar 135 or

Sironar-S 135 and more likely, inferior being 10-12 years old.

<p>

Thanks again!

Can someone please supply a web page or contact information for AWB

or Alan Brubaker? Thanks!