gene_crumpler6

Is it possible that you accidently put the camera synch on "m" rather than "x" for that shot?

Brian;

 

The new 55/f4 has the following markings on the DOF scale. At f-22, the DOF is 41/2 ft to infinity. At f-16 it is 7 to infinity and at f-11, it is 9 ft to infinity. In practice, when I expect to be making a 16x20 or 20x24 blowup, I will use 2-stops more than the scale, i.e set the lens at f-22 and use the f-11 markings. Therefore for big enlargements I would use f-22 and expect 7-8 ft to be in good focus.

 

The 55 does not seem to exhibit any significant diffraction loses at f-22.

From looking at some sites on the web, I found that the the pentax 67 has an underwater case good to 50 meters.

My 105mm f2.4 becomes VERY soft at F16 and F22, while providing excellent sharpness from f2.4 to f11. My 55mm remains very sharp at F22. The 200mm f4 drops only slightly at f22. I've concluded that each lens is a bit different in its optical performance, as the rather dramatic loss of sharpness in the 105 is much more than can be expected by diffraction.

 

So I stay away from the small apertures with the 105. OTOH my 55 is incredibly sharp at all f-stops and I can not tell any difference between f11, f16 and f22. YMMV

Jerry;

 

In MF, the differences between Tech Pan and T-max 100 show up in enlargements in excess of 16x20. I recently blew up a 6x7 t-max 100 negative to 28x22(10x- an extremely cropped 11x14 print) and the grain looked like T-max 100 35mm work. Tech pan would remain grainlessly smooth at that 10X enlargement. By maintaining an E. I. of 100, I can still hand hold in some situations, although if I load Tech Pan in the 6x7, I'm usually anticipating working on a tripod.

 

By the way, I am now souping tech pan in diafine and my negatives have never looked so good and uniform!

Jeff:

 

As I recall, the "A" model was sold in the early to mid 50's. It is a very basic TLR with a 3-element taking lens. The lens should give decent sharpness if stopped down to f-11/f16. It would be a good beginner camera to try out MF. I would not pay more than $60-80 for it depending on its condition. If you decide that it is not your cup of tea, you can resell it for what you paid for it. I don't know if the collectors want this camera yet and as a consequence started to run up the prices.

I have a C33/80mm black lens. The optical performace of the 80 and a recently defunct 105 chrome lens, are good (not outstanding) expecially at F11. However, for the price, they are great performers. I've run into some problems, as have others on this forum, with the alignment of the top and bottom lens. In my case, I don't know if it is the lens or the body. I added a shim to the top back of the lens board to get the focus on the ground glass and the film plane together. The c33/80 now function quite well as a back up camera for my other MF system. The old chrome shutters no longer have parts available.

I just realized you said a Seiko on a Rollei GX? What happened to compur?

Paul:

 

I have the new 55 f4 and I can say with out reservation, it is the best lens I have ever used. I've not used the older f3.5 version. From responses here on MFD, I surmise the older lens is a good performer, but not quite up to the new 55.

 

I was considering purchasing used lenses for my p67. Before deciding to buy, I exchanged e-mails with Pentax in Colorado. I asked Pentax what the differences were between "old" vs "new" versions of P67 lenses. They responded saying that all of the lenses had the same design EXCEPT the 55 and 200 which had been recently redesigned to improve performance. Thus I decided to purchase the 55 and 200 as my 2nd and 3rd lenses after the orginal 105. These correspond to 28mm and 105mm in 35mm, two of the lenses I use a lot.

 

My $0.02 worth. Perhaps some one else who has used both lenes side-by-side can give you further insight.

Well, if you went to the trouble to put it on a tripod, and assuming you are not shooting flash in a studio, releasing the mirror before releasing the shutter is a good idea. I almost always prefire the mirror when on a tripod, whether a 35mm or MF camera. It's like chicken soup, it does't hurt! And with a large 6x7 reflex it definitely helps.

My "rule of thumb" to insure sharp 16x20's is to use 2 stops less than the DOF indicatd on the scales on the Pentax lenses, i.e, use the f-11 marks when you are set at f-22.

My current E-mail is <nikonguy@worldnet.att.net>. I changed my ISP recently and for some reason, photo.net shows the new one sometimes and the old one sometimes.

Respooling 120 to 620 spools is easy, once you get the hang of it!. I used a kodak tourist many years ago(my fathers) and more recently tried it with a roll of tech pan (respooled 120). I was suprised that the lens performed well for an older triplet! It is a good introduction to MF, but the need to guess focus I found was a limitation for me.

 

E-mail me and I will explain how to respool 120 to 620. Only one little trick to it.

It means HIGH shutter speeds with SLR MF cameras! It takes 1/500+ with my 200mm on the p67 hand held to get a passable 16x20 print! In fact 16x20 prints with Tech Pan using my 80-200 f2.8 on a nikon looks almost as good.

 

I can't even get sharp 16x20's with my C33 hand held at 1/125 and the 80mm lens.

Has anyone considered that loading a 120 camera in total darkness would be a problem in lining up the arrows with the marks on the film rails. I've had no problems handling TP in either 35mm or 120 size.

 

Kodak IR film in 35mm must be handled in total darkness because it has no anti-halation backing and light can "pipe" through the film. This apparently is why Kodak does not produce their IR film in 120 size. The Konica 120 film does not produce the "glow' or "bloom" that kodak does.

Delta 100 or t-max 100 should be a good place to start as labs are use to these. Start with lighting ratios of 1:4. You will find that really good B&W prints are hard to come by from many labs. Most of us serious B&W photogs print our own work for max quality and creative control. Lots of people really get off on well done B&W prints these days!

The same problem exists with the p67-I. As suggested above, it just takes some practice to get the top notch in place and then release the bottom key.

Your results are typical of a four element lens. One suggestion in doing these types of tests is to use a flash in a dark room, open the shutter for about 10 seconds before firing the flash. This will eliminate any chance of camera shake.

For comparison, here are my results for an 80mm Mamiya TLR lens:

 

F-stop Center only

 

4.0 - 45 lp/mm

 

5.6 - 48

 

8 - 72

 

11 - 72

 

16 - 72

 

32 - 42

I'll add my $0.02 on the 55mm. I have the newest version and it is incredible sharp. It also focuses fairly close, so it is the lens that stays on the camera most of the time. It also almost uniformly sharp from f4 to f22. I picked it because 28mm is my favorite 35mm focal lenght. I also have the 105 and 200, but they are not quite as sharp at all F-stops.

 

55mm pentax f4-

 

Centers only

 

 

f4 - 68lp/mm

 

F5.6- 80

 

f 8 - 80

 

f11 --72

 

f16 - 72

 

f22 - 72

In defense of the p67, I've been able to produce crisp 24x28 blowups hand held at 1/250 with the 55mm. At 1/125 the mirror shake becomes a factor. All of this depends on the focal length of the lens. My rule of thumb is to use twice the focal length to get acceptable 16x20's.

I'm a big guy, 6'4", 240lb and I find the p67 system is very workable for me. Incidently, I've also checked my mamiya TLR's for shake and I detect significant unsharpness at 1/125 hand held. A. Adams said he could not hand hold his blads at less than 1/250, so my experience is that good MF work really needs a tripod. Any good work in any format needs a tripod. I own four. A fact of life.

Thanks for the input. A week is never enough time to photograph in almost any area of the world. As a working stiff, I have to take short 1-2 week vacations and with my wife traveling with me, I can't take full advantage of the time for photography. But If I can come home with 2-3 really good shots, that I can add to my collection of B&W prints, I feel sucessful. In a few more years, I'll retire from the 9-5 routine, then I will have more time to travel and shoot.

 

In the last couple of weeks, I have a gallery interested in my work, so right now I am focusing on getting a 15 -20 examples of my best work together to present to them. Wish me luck!

I'm planning a trip in September to fly to San Francisco and travel up

the west coast to Seattle. I'd appreciate any suggestions on locations

to do landscape photography. My strongest interest are sea scapes, but

other photogenic locations suggests are welcome. My primary interest

is B&W in MF, although I will also be shooting slides. I'll be

carrying a lot of equipment and my age will preclude any long hikes.

So access by auto is a consideration.

 

Thanks

Let me take a shot at this. Side by side, shooting with a 55mm f2.8 micro nikkor on tech pan film and shooting with a 105mm mamiya tlr lens on tech pan, the tlr lens will give a better 16 x20 print, but not by a whole lot. A 55mm f4 new version pentax 67 lens will leave both in the dust. Lens hoods all around!

 

Be careful buying used mamiya TLR equipment, I've run into focus alignment problems with a couple of lenses. I've also lost two shutters(one chrome and one black)in the last year that were economically unrepairable. My$0.02

As a confirmed owner, user of two MF systems, I might add that if all you want are grain-less 8x10's you might give tech pan 2415 (35mm)a try before making the leap into MF. I've found that you can shoot tech pan (rated between 50-100) and develop in diafine (1 1/2 minutes in the B solution) and get fantastic negatives if you have good quality lenses. I just last night printed a great print(sea scape in Maui)which was blown up past 11x14 that had detectable grain only in the mid tone sky. The shot was made with a 80 -200 f2.8 AF D nikkor lenses hand held (25A filter, 1/250 at f5.6, tech pan rated 100).

The earlier 8x10 work prints have no detectable grain at all.

A follow up on my earlier response. The DOF markers at f11 (which is what I use for the f22 setting on my 55mm) check out at about 9 1/2 feet to infinity. This will give good DOF in a 16x20.