sergio_ortega6

John,

 

Stacking more than one filter on the 65mm will likely cause vignetting, it's easily avoided by just using one filter at a time.

Marcin,

 

Make sure you mount the top (viewing) CU lens in the correct orientation or its parallax correction will not work properly. Most of these have a small indexing mark that when mounted should be at the twelve o'clock position over the camera's viewing lens.

Karl,

 

I had one of the 50mm 1.2 AIS Nikkors, not the 58 noct you've asked about. The 50 1.2 was a very good lens, even wide open. It was also an extremely well made lens, even by Nikon's excellent standards, much more so than even the 1.4 AIS Nikkors I've had. The only 58 1.2 I've handled (never shot with one) felt just as nice as the 1.2 50, and the viewfinder image was just as bright and beautiful. Very rare lens.

 

I would say that no matter how good the fast Nikkors are, even the Leitz 2.0 Summicron will provide better results given the slow shutter speed capabilties of the Leica, and the 1.4 Summilux should be even better. Comparing negatives made handheld with the fast 1.2 Nikkor to those made with my slower Summicron, wide open, the Leitz lens was more capable in low light since I was able to use it at much slower shutter speeds.

In my opinion Willy Ronis, a contemporary of HCB and by comparison relatively unknown, produced work that overshadows HCB's. It's often perplexing to me how one artist achieves superstar status while others, often more deserving, don't receive similar public acclaim.

David,

 

I have an older SWC from the late sixties. I've used it all over, in cold snowy mountains, dry, dusty climates and hot, humid Florida summers. It's so small and light that I can carry it all day in a pack with an extra A12 back and a small tripod. Many times it's the only camera I take on a long hike.

 

I wish I could tell you that I've bounced it around, but I tend to baby the thing. And it's never failed me in all the years I've used it. The only problem I've had is with the viewfinder, the old "trumpet style" version; mine seems to have clouded up a bit over the years. But then maybe it's my eyesight that's going bad. A new one costs a bundle so I just live with it, or use the ground glass adapter and finder hood when I have the time and space. The results I get with this older, non-multicoated 38mm Biogon are just as good as the newer CF lenses I have. It really is a good lens.

 

I also used the Fuji rangefinder, a very different camera than the SWC, but with a really excellent lens every bit as good as the SWC's. I do have some issues with the Fuji's shutter and its lack of a proper shutter speed for exposures longer than one second, but that's something you can live with and work around.

 

I tend to think that the Fuji would stand up to more abusive treatment than the SWC, though this impression might have more to do with the price of a SWC over the Fuji...something to consider if you're going to really batter the thing.

 

Good luck, Sergio.

Like I said before, I don't have the article, but from what I can remember it claimed the following:

 

POP Photo tested the three normal lenses on each of their own bodies, and also on each of the other two bodies. They stated that the Hexar lens/Hexar body combination produced excellent results, same as the other proprietary lens/body combinations.

 

They also concluded that the combination of the Hexar body and the Leitz lens (I don't recall the test results of the Voightlander lens on the Hexar body) yielded negatives of significantly lower resolution, and they wondered why. They stated that the Hexar's lens mount to film plane distance (I'm not certain what they were actually measuring here) was slightly different on the Hexar than the other two bodies, and theorized that this caused the slightly soft, or out-of-focus, negatives. I don't believe the rangefinder adjustment was discussed.

 

They then went on to state that using shorter focal length lenses and/or smaller taking apertures would effectively minimize the slight loss of precise focus at the film plane when using the Leitz glass on the Hexar bodies, and thereby increase the resolution to acceptable levels.

 

Perhaps someone has this magazine article and could post the precise information.

Just read an interesting little test in POP Photo. They tested the

Hexar, M7 and Voightlander camera, with lenses of each make for all

three bodies, to see if the lenses are fully compatible and

interchangeable.

 

I don't have the article before me (I don't buy this mag), but they

claim that the Leitz lenses mount correctly on the Hexar body but do

not focus quite right on that body. Something having to do with the

distance of the mounted lens to the film plane being different on the

hexar vs. the Leica. Interesting considering the number of comments

here regarding the compatibility of these two systems.

Dave, To answer your question:

 

I bit the bullet and got a Hasselblad B60/67 SU ring. Fits like every other Hasselblad accessory...absolutely perfectly. It also costs $60 new.

 

I got a used one from Gil Ghitelman for about half that. I believe that B+W, Heliopan and others make these, but after my experience I decided to avoid problems. You might try another brand, but I cannot comment since I have no firsthand experience.

 

BTW, I know you did not ask, but Lee Filters has an excellent system for Hasselblad, and any other camera system you might have, in any format. I already had a bunch of Lee filters (several graduated ND filters, as well as B&W and CC filters) and their excellent hoods for use with all my other equipment. Lee sells a Hasselblad Bay 60 adapter ring for use with all their stuff, and it works perfectly. And the Lee square hood is the best shade I've ever used with Hasselblad lenses of all focal lengths, including my SWC. It's not cheap stuff, but neither are the Hasselblad filters/compendium hoods/adapte rings, etc.

Dave,

 

I ordered a Tiffen SU ring from B&H so I could use all my 67mm filters with my Bay 60 CF lenses. The first one mounted so poorly that it nearly took off all the black finish from the mounting surfaces on one lens; it really was very badly machined. I returned it and got a second Tiffen SU ring...same problem, even worse...sent it back and got a different brand. It was more expensive than the Tiffen, but it worked fine. I'm not knocking Tiffen filters, every other Tiffen product I've bought was of very good quality. But these particular Tiffen Bay 60/67 SU rings were total junk. Try another brand.

 

Good luck, Sergio.

Thanks to all. Yes, flare...not "flair". Well, now I guess I'll have an excuse to get that new 35 ASPH I've been wanting...get that old flair back in my photography.

Badrul,

 

The Mamiya 330 TLR is a very good MF camera. It's an excellent, relatively inexpensive starter camera that you can continue using for years with confidence. I bought a new Mamiya TLR nearly 25 years ago, used it extensively, and in recent years tried out and purchased several other brands of MF cameras. Negatives from my old 330F compare very nicely with any of the more expensive cameras I've used since.

 

The newer lenses (I don't have much experience with the older chrome versions, just the more recent black ones) are very good in all respects, and will allow you to enlarge your MF negatives to the same degree as any other MF system available, either in B&W or color. And used 330 system lenses are very inexpensive compared to other brands of MF glass. The 180mm is one of the best, as are the 80mm and the 55mm. I've enlarged full frame negatives to 20x20 (on 20x24 papers) with very good results.

 

Good luck, Sergio.

Roger,

 

I think that the versatility of a precise, lightweight metal 4x5 field camera, that can be used with sheet film and roll film backs cannot be beat. In my case I traded in a 4x5 wood field for a Canham DLC. I also considered the 4x5 Arca Swiss and the Linhof Technikardan, both very precise and lightweight cameras.

 

I wanted a camera that would be very light, could fold up very compactly and set up quickly, would be precise and made to higher tolerances than my old wood field, could handle Graflok type roll film backs and would focus the shorter focal length lenses that I would be using with roll film backs with a minimum of fuss. The DLC meets all my expectations, and I expect either the Arca Swiss or the Technikardan would have as well. Sometimes I wonder if I should have chosen one or the other over the DLC, but then I remind myself that the only perfect view camera is the one you have not used yet.

 

I've got both a Wista 6x9 and a Horseman 6x12 RF back. I find both backs to be quite good and have not had any problems with film flatness, spacing problems or other mechanical issues. I find myself using mostly color transparency films in 120, and still prefer shooting B&W in 4x5. I've saved a lot of money using 120 roll film, both in processing and film costs, and I find bracketing exposures very easy with roll film.

 

I use the same lenses as before with 4x5, and only added a 55 Grandagon for wide angle roll film work. I find the modern LF lenses of such high quality that I don't feel the need to upgrade to some of the newer super lenses.

 

I think you would be limiting yourself needlessly by choosing a strictly MF view camera.

 

Good luck, Sergio.

Sorry...I did not mean to imply that anyone here is on Maxwell's payroll.

Question for owners of this lens:

 

I have a 35 Summicron M, black, Canadian, last version pre-Asph.

When held up at certain angles to the light it shows a series of

reflected concentric circles on the rear element, like a bullseye

with about four or five rings around it. It's not actually something

on the glass surface, it looks like a series of interior reflections

or ghost images that appear to shift around as you tilt the lens back

and forth as it reflects light. It's only apparent from the rear,

not from the front. Shining a light directly into it from either the

front or rear reveals nothing.

 

Got the lens, new, quite some time ago. It's clean and clear, never

been damaged, dropped or otherwise abused. Images appear as good as

ever, though I have noticed it's a bit more prone to flair than

before. I first noticed this about a couple of years ago, and the

reflections seem more prominent now than before. None of my other

Leitz lenses (or any other brand, for that matter) show this

phenomenon.

 

Has anyone noticed this on their lenses? Any ideas what causes it?

Coating problems? Or is it normal?

 

Thanks, Sergio.

J-B,

 

This guy Maxwell must be paying people to suggest his product every time someone asks about about Beattie brightscreens. I recently looked through a 3.5F equipped with one of these legendary Maxwell screens, expecting something miraculous, an epiphany even, and it looked the same as the Beattie screen on my own 3.5F; no better, no worse, just as easy to focus. The Beattie's also less expensive, comes in several configurations (plain, split-microprism, gridded, etc.), and in a size to fit most any camera, Rolleis included.

 

The Beattie will slip right into any F Rollei model, with none of the necessary adjustments that so commonly are reported, in about ten seconds. And if you want/need to clean off the mirror at the same time, go ahead and do it...carefully; you don't need a repairshop to do it, a common q-tip with a drop of lens cleaner will gently wipe off years of dust and grime.

 

I've also read here that the Beattie screens are so difficult to focus, and they lack contrast, and so on. I've even compared the Beattie in My Rollei to my Hasselblad Acutte-mat screens, and, to be perfectly frank, I see no difference in ability to focus or the degree on contrast. I set up both cameras side-by-side, and they both looked great to my eye.

 

Just one person's opinion. Good luck, Sergio.

Jonas,

 

Most folks seem to start out with a 90mm for wide angle 4x5 work; it's not too wide, yet it will definitely allow for that distinct wide angle 4x5 look. Not too sure about the zoom range you're asking about, the 90 is about the equivalent of a 28mm. As far as brand, you really cannot go wrong with a modern 90mm f/8 Schneider SA or Nikkor SW.

M cameras are: small and easy to carry and pack, reasonably light yet substantial, extremely quiet, simple and uncomplicated to use, incredibly well made and long-lasting, have very good fast lenses that are usable wide open, unobtrusive looking, and can be handheld at ridiculuosly slow shutter speeds yet still achieve good results.

 

They are absolutely the best choice for: available light, people, travel, street, photojournalism and reportage work.

 

Don't use them if your want or need to do: close-up work, use long lenses (over 90mm), don't like focussing/metering/advancing film/rangefinder viewing.

 

Above all don't buy into Leica if you're expecting to "improve" your photography, get "much better images", or produce "really big prints".

Ted,

 

The old style GG adapter is rather dim compared to the newer acute-mat version, but it's still usable. The standard folding hood can be used, but it does not really shield the screen from extraneous light well enough to provide a good image on the ground glass, and its folding loupe is only good for fine focussing, not composing.

 

The best device to use is the reflex viewer (already previously mentioned), or the older in-line viewing hood with adjustable eyepiece (called the "chimney viewer" by some... sorry, I don't have the Hasselbald part #). These devices properly shield the ground glass from light, allowing a full view of the screen for composing and focussing. Both can be left attached to the GG adapter as one unit, making switching to film backs and storing the thing easier.

 

The reflex viewer is better for low angle shots, since you can position your eye above the camera and not grovel around in the dirt. The inline unit is better for eye level work for obvious reasons. The reflex viewer is a newer device and more difficult to find used, the old style chimney viewer has been around for years and can be found for very little money (Keh photo usually has a bunch of them in varying conditions at reasonable prices).

 

Good luck, Sergio.

Wiley,

 

I agree with Ulrik. The split microprism screen is definitely better than the plain screen for fine focussing on the eyes in portraiture, or any other important feature in your composition. The waist level flip-up loupe is good for fine-focussing with either screen, but not very good for composing and shooting quickly, expecially if you're trying to capture your subject's expressions and such. Flipping it up and down before making exposures is a sure way to miss your shot.

 

With my 503cx cameras I use the 45 degree prism finder. It magnifies the image on the screen enough to achieve faster focus than with the waist level hood, even with the plain accute-mat screen. And it feels much more comfortable and intuitive when following action than when using a waist level finder, more akin to a 35mm SLR.

 

If working within predetermined focussing distances in the studio or on location, either on a tripod or handheld, you could pre-focus with the flip-up loupe on your subject, select the appropriate aperture to give you adequate DOF within a certain range taking into account your subject's movement, and then make your exposures.

 

Good luck, Sergio.

William,

 

They are a real pain to use with the Fujis. Or any rangefinder for that matter.

 

If you're concerned about vignetting with the 65mm lens, or with any wide angle lens and circular polarizer, get one of the thin-mount ring versions made by several of the major filter manufacturers; Tiffen, B+H and Hoya make them, and they're all good. These are thinner, screw on as usual and project out from the front lens rim much less than regular thick circular polarizers. Vignetting is effectively eliminated with all but the widest of lenses.

 

Using it is more of a chore. The Fujis are all manual (no internal meter) so you'll be using a filter factor with your handheld meter when using a CP, or any filter. It's easier to apply this factor via the EI setting, rather than making mental computations each time you meter. For example, if you're increasing exposure by two stops for the CP, change the ASA setting on your meter accordingly to give two more stops exposure, then meter as usual. Don't forget to change the setting when you remove the CP or change filters.

 

You can simply hold the CP in front of your eye and evaluate the scene in question, spinning it around till you've achieved the desired polarizing effect. Note the position of the meter's outer ring (you can make small marks on the outer edge of the ring for reference, or use the printing on the filter ring as a point of reference) at twelve o'clock while looking through it, then re-attach the filter on the lens, making sure that the same reference point is again at twelve o'clock. It's a little easier than it sounds.

 

Good luck, Sergio.

On the road I've often used one of the Combi-Plan daylight tanks that holds up to six sheets of 4x5 and it worked fine; development and staining is very even. Development times can be a bit hard to precisely control with the slow fill and drain times.

Scott,

 

I don't have the Pyro book in front of me, but I believe that Hutchings states that the working solution should be used shortly after combining the A and B stock solutions with water. I understand the working solution does not have any shelf life.

Steve,

 

Handholding a 600mm Pentax 67 lens at any speed is quite a accomplishment.

Michael,

 

You don't mention if your negatives look OK in the corners/edges. The Nikkor 450's minimum aperture is f/128, I normally used it at about f/45 or f/64. Viewing wide open on the 8x10 groundglass it seemed to be a bit softer at the edges than at the center, but the negatives don't reveal this loss of sharpness at the taking apertures.

 

I've also noticed this with my wide angle 4x5 lenses, like my Nikkor 75 SW. The corners look fuzzy at maximum aperture (f/4.5), but the negatives look fine at taking apertures (usually f/16 to f/22).

Paul,

 

To use the traditional waist level finder with any Nikon body you have to have a removeable prism (only the pro "F" bodies allow that). The right angle finder can be used with a variety of eyepiece adapters with most of the other Nikon bodies (I've used it with the N90S and the FM bodies). I've also used the folding waist level on my F3 bodies. A few thoughts:

 

The waist level attachment is a bit of a useless gimmick in my opinion; I bought it back in the days I was a sucker for all the little Nikkor accessory doodads. I even picked up one of those huge Sports TV screen-like finders to use with the F3 body...talk about useless! You can really almost achieve the same result by just removing the HP prism on the F3 and composing on the ground glass screen at waist level, perhaps shielding the screen a bit with your body or hand. At any rate, at waist level it is a tad on the small side. About the only useful feature of the WL finder is the little flip-up loupe device for really fine focussing macro shots.

 

The right angle finder is a more useful device. It's good for really low-angle macro photography and such, and, unlike the WL thing, the right angle attachment rotates allowing you to compose vertical shots.

 

Be aware that the entire viewfinder image is hard to see with the Nikkor right angle viewer, and it is a bit dim. I understand that the Minolta right angle viewer is better in this respect, and Kirk Enterprises (see their website) sells it along with the correct eyepiece adapter ring for the Nikon bodies.

 

Good luck, Sergio.