avid

I borrowed a Pentacon 6 to EOS adapter from a friend, an inexpensive Chinese product he says, and it fit on this lens like a glove. The wall to the side of the adapter is thin enough that it misses the protruding pin by a mm at most and makes it work. I think the particular adapter was designed with this pin in mind. Whew!!

 

While I don't think this zebra lens is the Olympia version (they were silvery metallic, AFAIK, and would be great to have), these zebra versions are well respected, and even with a single coating it renders good color and contrast. I have seen many of these zebra variety without the pin, including another one of mine. Yes, I did get a little greedy and ended up with two :-P

The pin changes height when you turn the aperture ring. It transfers that information to the adapters for 35mm cameras.

 

Instead of cutting it off, I would try to remove it in a reversible manner.

 

Yes, it indeed changes height as the aperture ring is turned. I think it would be wise to take it to a camera repair shop and let them do it professionally. It's hard to tell how this pin is assembled deep inside the flange. The lens is too pristine for me to mess with. Tom Chow, do you know which 35mm cameras need this pin to communicate with? I was intending to mount it on a Canon EOS camera, which doesn't seem to need it as there is no provision to accept this pin.

Thanks

I just received this medium format Pentacon 6 lens which I intend to use on a Pentacon Six camera, but also want to mount it on a Cannon 5d Mk II with an adapter. Problem is, it has a pin sticking out in the back (besides the aperture control pin), which is preventing the lens from attaching to the EOS adapter. This pin doesn't sink in at all, but pulls out a little bit, but not all the way out. What is this extra pin for? Can this just be trimmed off? I have an exact same lens which only has the aperture control pin, not this additional pin. Here is an image of the two lenses. One on the left is the strange one...........

 

Unfortunately, the camera that could do that with a fine line up of lenses, has been discontinued. My Contax 645 goes to 1/2000th of a sec and I have used it at that speed a time or two. With the Hasselblad, the NDs are a must, as others suggested.

Frank, thanks for the focal length info. What about the approximate f/stop? In hind sight, I should not have bought this camera and gone for the wooden ones from Santa Barbara instead. The Daylab does not hold the Polaroid back to well either. Very poorly manufactured stuff.

Does anyone know the focal length and the f-stop (not the pinhole diameter) of a

Daylab 4x5 pinhole camera? I have called the company and left several messages

and no one has bothered to return any calls. Maybe someone on this forum uses

one? Thanks in advance.

Thank you Simon. It was the lens that had a problem and I exchanged it for a perfect one. I bought this lens after reading up on how good it was and I must say, I am disappointed. It is not as sharp at the corners as other highly regarded lenses, IMO. The flare control is poor even with all those layers of coatings. My Contax 645 Zeiss 35mm is sharper, and highly flare resistant. Sorry if other owners think otherwise, but I think the 50mm FLE lens is highly over-rated for its price. Maybe the 60mm is better.

Stefan and Adam, Thanks for the kind info on the said lens. I am not too concerned about the light falloff, actually I welcome it for the same reason that Adam states. My main concern is regarding sharpness, color and contrast. I wonder if there is a huge difference in those aspects compared to the f/4.5. The price is around what you paid, Adam. I may have to get it and see it for myself. I used to have a 80mm XL that I sold and getting this as a cost effective alternative while going a little wider. I am just hoping that the quality won't be very far off from the 80mm XL. It's a Rodenstock after all. Example from the lens would be great to see.

Jim, I have that same lens and I can tell you, barring from viewing very late into dusk, the projected image is quite bright making it easy enough to focus. Many times, I have focused it without the need of a dark cloth. The bokeh is not very interesting to me but it is very, very sharp.

Having come across one of these lenses in an EX+ state and at a fair price, I am

thinking of buying it but wondering if it is worth having. I know there is a

difference between the f/6.8 and the f/4.5 version, but is it significant? I am

not at all concerned about the vignetting but sharpness, color and contrast are

desirable. At 75mm I am not expecting a whole lot of movement and can tilt the

back standard to stay within the image circle. How is the sharpness at the

edges? Especially at f/22 or f/32 where I normally shoot? How is the color

rendition and contrast compared to a Nikkor or Schneider? I would love to see

some images shot with this lens (even jpegs would suffice) and user opinions

from real world application, if possible. My intended use of the lens is to

shoot landscapes and century old buildings in B&W and color. Lightness of weight

is certainly a plus in the field. I will have to make a fast decision before the

seller finds another buyer. A BIG thanks to all that can help answer these.

While landscapes can be shot with just about any lens and camera combination, for best result for architectural photography, I second the recommendation of a view camera. I use both formats, med and large, but to shoot architectural subjects, I favor the tilt and shift abilities to get the most control over the image and more image area to fit buildings and such. If you must stick to MF, the Hassy Flexbody or shift adapters from Zoerk USA are your best options.

David and Q.G. ..... thanks for your response in trying to help me on this.

 

First off, no tubes are attached, just the lens and the 80mm focuses as usual on the body. I tried what Q.G. recommended by keeping the front focus ring at infinity mark but the lens still did not bring the farthest objects into focus. Aside from the groundglass, I verified the horizontal split image on a vertical wall 20 feet away and it remained split at the very end of the focus pull. Objects 3 feet away come into focus fine. All was fine and dandy until this afternoon. I inadvertently kept moving the FLE focus ring while shooting a landscape, and little by little, it seemed like I couldn't get the distant cliffs to come into focus while the pebbles a few feet away was in sharp focus. It seems, if the normal focus ring could go another quarter turn, it will bring infinity to focus. Quite a pesky problem. I wonder if the FLE has malfunctioned and left the front elements in a wrong postion. I always shoot at f/11 or higher (even with wide lenses) to ensure deep focus and often check that by using the DoF lever. No luck this time. I too suspect something is definitely wrong. But how? The lens is in great shape. Wish there was a way to go back to default settings and start all over again.

To further explain/clarify the point, suppose I set the front distance ring to 0.8<--->1.2 mark (or any other) and rotate the normal focussing ring at the back of the lens to bring the infinity to focus, it gets to the end of C CW rotation before the infinity comes in focus. Checking with the DoF lever at f/11 still shows very far objects are out of focus. Having never read of focussing issues with this lens, I must be doing something wrong!

I also do it routinely: remove back, cock shutter and fire away, no jams.

I can't seem to focus to infinity with the FLE for some reason. I fiddled a bit

with the FLE focussing ring and no matter where I put it, it doesnt bring

infinity to focus. I can focus to close range objects but on the ground glass

and with the Acute Matte D split screen, I can see the distant objects are out

of focus. Anyone had such problem per chance and know the remedy? I wonder if

the non-FLE lens is free of such hassle! Thanks in advance.

I don't have such problems loading the film on a Hassy back, but I think the design of the back makes it a bit cumbersome. In comparison, I am much faster spooling film with the Contax 645 back and anyone that uses both will know the difference. Not to mention the convenience of being able to load both 120 and 220 films with the same back on a Contax. Just my observation.

Paul, I shoot it rated at 25 ISO to get a good negative. But the positive becomes useless. No point shooting for the positive if you can get multiple prints/scans from a nice negative.

I wonder if H.M. actually ever used a Contax 645. Some people give their opinions on stuff they have no first hand experience in. Every camera has their pros and cons, Contax has too many pros for the cons to be an issue. I have one and I love using it. I also have a Hasselblad 503 that I use because of the square format. And when I do, it makes me wish the Contax was a 6x6.

I plan to use this lens on a 4x5 format. Am I going to miss any

feature of the lens by using on a smaller format than it was intended

for? This is the version with a variable diffusion adjustment ring in

the front in Alphax shutter. I have a 7 inch Vesta that seems to have

a beautiful diffusion effect on the edges of the frame. I wonder if

the Velostigmat has similar characteristic which I will surely miss

in that case. Does anyone use it as a landscape lens being so heavy

for field? Any particular procedure of focusing the lens to get the

diffusion effect and still maintain proper focus? Thanks in advance.

Marika, thanks for your response and the links. I have the album but it does not name the photographers, only thanks them for their images.

That Peter Grant!!! I thought someone here may have assisted him at some point and would know.

Could not figure out which one of the forums this should go under but

since it must have been a medium format camera, thought the medium

format digest might be appropriate.

 

I am curious as to who shot the images for the Led Zeppelin album, In

through the Out Door. You know, the one with a man in a white suit in

a rustic looking bar, somewhere deep South. I have always admired

those images (or maybe the feel of the divey bar)and wanted to know

who the photographer was. I am sure someone here will know. Any web

site of the artist exist? Thanks.

So, how did it turn out? I am curious. I have toyed with the idea before but never got to it. I do use a Rodagon 105mm enlarging lens on a Contax 645 camera with amazing results and curious about your experiment.

I use a Minolta Multi Pro for medium format and an Epson 4870 for large format, both with Siverfast acquisition software. Both are fantastic with slides and very iffy with color negs (even with Negafix). The Epson is fine with 4x5s but wouldn't bother scanning smaller formats with it. I had bought a Microtek i900 scanner and used for a few days before going back to Epson. What I found out in the brief use is that it was fantastic at scanning negatives (medium and large format), far better than the other two, but was not upto par with slides for some reason. If I shot more negatives, the i900 would be it.

Beautiful body of work no matter the process. Looks like Speed graphic, expired Polaroids, maybe Photoshop, 6x7 cameras etc. Reminds me of work of these other photographers in subject and style:

http://nickbrandt.com/

http://vernevansphoto.com/

Thanks everyone for your kind responses and helpful suggestions. I have contacted Tim at LensN2shutters and he has been immensely helpful in figuring out the best possible solution for the lens. I would like to keep the Verito's apertures, as Matt pointed out, and I am sure Tim will figure something out. I have to admit, I am intimidated by the Packard shutters....for now. Especially for field use.

 

Will, those are beautiful images on your site. Actually I have been there before and one of the reasons (along with Jim Galli's samples) motivated to acquire a Verito in the first place. Seeing the images on your site, I am very impressed by what the lens can do in able hands. The examples of the image rendition at various apertures was very informative and should I say, also inspiring. Hope to see more of your work on the site. Thanks.