bob_salomon

Which 90?

All Wista cameras all have the same ground glass back. In addition the RF and the SP have the Micro Focus knob on the back. The VX does not. As I stated earlier. The SP and the RF are exactly the same cameras with exactly the same features and with exactly the same operating instructions. The only difference is that the RF has the rangefinder/viewfinder built in and the SP does not. The rangefinder/viewfinder is for 135/150/180mm lenses. It was designed for Nikon lenses which have not been made in decades but can be adjusted to other lenses of these focal lengths. For all other focal lengths focusing and composing has to be done on the ground glass.

1 No, the RF is the same as the SP except it has the rangefinder/viewfinder. 2 why in the world would you want to pay more for an RF then for an SP and then mutilate it to make it into a SP with holes on the top and a gutted interior? All you will do is greatly reduce the value of an excellent camera so you could never get your money back. If you buy a RF and want to use it without the rangefinder then just use it the same way as the SP.

Does he really want a "cheap" camera or a reasonable or inexpensive one? Cheap does not exactly infer quality!

Patrick, That doesn't rule out all rail cameras. The Linhof Technikardan 45 folds into about the size of a hard back book and opens into a 21" monorail with all movements and capable, with the bag bellows, of using a 45mm lens. What would rule it out would be cost and, perhaps, weight. But it does fold smaller then many folding box and technical type cameras. There was also a very small and light monorail made by Gowland way back when. Canham also has a folding monorail camera.

Try this http://www.betterlight.com/downloads/conference10_speakers/guyer_Polarization.pdf http://www.inkjetbuzz.com/blog/index.php/site/comments/copying_artwork_a_polarization_tutorial/

One of the big problems that could occur using lenses that short is foreshortening, things closer to the lens will reproduce larger then things further from the lens. When doing the icons the center of the frame will be closer then the edges. Maybe look at using a longer lens with the digital, do multiple shots, overlapping about 30% with the lens adjusted to swing around its nodal point and then simply stitch the shots together. Easy to do in Photoshop and other processing software. Especially with even lighting. These lenses would also be free of fall off.

I said that the planes of polarization are all adjusted so that they are the same. Not crossed. You put the polarizer, a really, really good one, on the lens and one on one light. You rotate the one on the lens to maximum polarizing effect. You turn that light off and turn the second one on, without moving the one on the lens. You rotate the one on the second light to maximum polarization, as viewed through the camera. Now all three are properly adjusted. Do not use this with precious metals as they will reproduce as black metal. Do use it for all art work not using precious metals. Good quality polarizer so will not have a blue effect and if you are using lesser ones a simple white balance will correct for the shift.

Joe, Good strobes do have modeling lights as well as interchangeable reflectors and other accessories to control the light. They also, today, are UV corrected so they eliminate excess blue which many "speed light"aren't. Additionally, should one be using film, their flash durations are long enough to prevent reciprocity failure. In any case, with the advent of good LED lighting, the use of flash may be solved providing there is a way to control the light from the LEDs.

I did lots of copywork. Mostly with a Robertson and then with Sinars, Linhof's, Hasselblads and Rolleis. We were taught polarized lighting and used Kodaks lighting polarizer soft copy lights. Have you used them?

Joe, Go visit some museums or art photographers for a lesson on polarized copy work. Obviously if you are copying oils, especially, the medium is not perfectly flat and using unpolarized technique will not allow you to control all spectral so and record all the brush strokes. If they used a pallet knife it gets even more difficult to control. No myth. Just proper technique.

If you want the brush stroke details then it is polarized lighting only. Diffused will not do it.

It has the same, typical, fall off as the other modern wide angles. So, if you need the most even coverage from edge to edge you will need a center filter. However, if you are doing art works and plan on capturing the brush strokes then you will also need polarized lighting as well as a polarizer on the lens, all adjusted for the same polarizing plane. If you will be doing this then the polarizer on the lens has to fit the front of your center filter.

Hank, This is a 15 year old thread and before your reply the last one was almost 8 years ago.

Linhof, Sinar, and others, place the Fresnel on the eye side, not the lens side of the gg. This way it is easily removed and replaced, as desired and its thickness is not an issue.

No. It is a process lens designed for copying flat objects, like a print, at 1:1 or near 1:1 at f22 only. Rode stocks enlarging lenses are/were the Rodagon, Rodagon G/ Apo Rodagon (up to 180mm only), Rogoar, Roganr S, etc.

You can order the proper scales from any Rodenstock distributor.

Yes, if you buy both this lens and board and a Copal 1 shutter. Then you could remove this lens from the DB board, mount it into a Copal 1 shutter, of the proper size. And then mount the lens and shutter on any lens board that you want. Otherwise, no. This would not mount directly to any other lens board.

Want to be able to change lenses, or shoot macro? If yes then you need something else then an old Polaroid.

Rodenstock only lists the filter had size and the rear flange size, which we have told you is M50 x 0.75. If you are looking for the thread size of the rear of the front group and the front of the rear group then Rodenstock does not list those and they are not 0 or 1 size shutter threads. As I mentioned earlier, if you want to properly mount the cells into a shutter you will have to take the lens andtheshutter to a machinist to have them mated properly in the shutter

Nonsense. You want to know how one lens optically performs, compared to another. Just because you know the formula doesn't assure that your lens is a good or bad performer. Even if another known example has tested good.

No, I was with the USA Rodenstock distributor. You were looking at a Russian distributor site. Not the Rodenstock factory web site.

M50 x 0.75. See my answer to your question in the other forum. By the way, this is a wide angle process lens made for vertical process cameras, like a Kenro. It makes a terrible enlarging lens and is not a general purpose taking lens. It is an excellent flat field copy lens at 1:1 or close to 1:1. It was designed to deliver optimal performance at f22.

Lens coverage is very easy to determine. All you need is a window with drapes or shades, a darkened room, the lens you want to test and a very large piece of white cardboard. Put your camera on a tripod, put the lens on the camera, set at f22(after focusing on an object at infinity), remove the back from the camera and hold the cardboard behind the lens. Move it towards or away from the camera till you see a sharp image. Now measure the diameter of the useable circle of illumination on the cardboard. That is the coverage at f22 at infinity. No charts needed. Next, all of your research on construction details tells us nothing about optical performance. And that should be the most important specification about a lens. Not miscellaneous details like the color of the reflections. They will be determined by the design of the lens and the glass types used in the construction and are really not important to one looking for the best lens for the money. That comes down to the performance of the lens. And yes, you are correct, the 300mm is a lens that is used as a normal lens for 810 and the Fuji, being a different design, may not cover that format as efficiently.

Peter, If you have the Sironar rather then the later Sironar-N or Sironar-N MC or the Apo Sironar-N or Apo Sironar-S or Apo Sironar or Apo Sironar-W then you are looking at a rather old design that would not compare to any of the later ones, which were not symmetrical designs. But after reading your rather detailed post comparing your two lenses you seem to have left out 2 things: 1: what are the circles of illumination of your two lenses? 2: how do they compare optically, on film, at the same f stop (f22) if you are shooting 45, of the same subject, at your normal shooting distances, under the same lighting with the same film and with identical processing and, if necessary, printing at the center, edges and corners with meaningful detail across the frame?