greg_lawhon

Bill:

 

<p>

 

I'll answer your question for Howard. The answer is as easy as

looking at Howard's e-mail address! Check out

www.naturelandscape.com.

Mike:

 

You're likely to find passionate defenders of each lens, and another group who will say both are great. I'd fall in the camp that would say both would be terrific lenses, and there would be more difference in lens-to-lens samples within each group than between Planars and Xenotars, 2.8 or 3.5. For a similar price, I'd buy whichever camera was in better condition.

 

You might enjoy reading some of the debates that have raged in the past over the best lenses for the Rollei TLR, so check out the searchable archives of the Rollei Users Group mailing list. A search for Xenotar or Planar will yield lots of posts, including a number where people have added old lens test results from 1950s and 1960s photo magazine tests. Here is the link: http://lq.corenetworks.com/lq/search.html?ln=rollei

 

There also are several Rollei TLR sites, and here's one to start:

http://home.sol.no/~lhusabo/Rollei/index.html

Brendan:

 

<p>

 

I've been looking into the scanning/Lightjet option lately, and here

are some labs in California that have been very helpful, both through

their websites and in phone callls (granted, they all are in Northern

California rather than LA as you asked, but these and Evercolor in

Massachusetts are the only ones I'm familiar with):

 

<p>

 

1. Laser Light Photographics (Bill Nordstrom):

http://www.laserlightprintmaker.com/

 

<p>

 

2. West Coast Imaging: http://www.westcoastimaging.com/

 

<p>

 

3. Calypso: http://www.calypsoinc.com/

 

<p>

 

Note that I understand Bill Nordstrom's claim to fame is that he is a

great scanner and artist/technician in cleaning up files and

optimizing them for output to the Lightjet printer. I believe he

sends the scanned and cleaned-up file out to another shop for printing

on the Lightjet. Sorry I can't help you with any in the LA area.

Hey, I just figured out why people made such a big deal about that 1990 New Year's Celebration we just had! Oops - you're right Jeff. It's tough getting old. Maybe I wanted to forget that I am 40 now too.

Sergio and Ken offer good information and advice, but I thought it would be worth correcting one thing in Ken's post about the age of the E models. Ken said condition was paramount in choosing between a 30-year-old F and a 50-year-old E. The E models are not that old, having been produced in the three-year period before release of the 3.5F and 2.8F.

 

The oldest that a 3.5E or 2.8E could be is 34 years. Production of the 3.5E was from October 1956 until February 1959, at which time the 3.5F Type 1 began. The 2.8E models were produced from October 1956 until September 1959, with 2.8F models coming out in 1960. And just to make things confusing, Rollei manufactured 3.5E2, 3.5E3, 2.8E2 and 2.8E3 models, which used parts from both the Es and Fs (the EVS interlock system from the Es and removable focusing hood from the Fs) until 1965.

 

I just thought RJ should know that the potential difference in age between an old F and any E is actually quite small.

Vincent:

 

Here is the link for the ROR website: http://www.ror.net/index.htm

Are all Pentax 645 manual focus 300mm/f4 ED lenses internal focus

(IF)? I have seen some descriptions in ads as 300mm ED and some as

300mm ED(IF), and one person has told me he thought there were earlier

non-IF versions. If so, it seems they would have to be very early

versions, as I have several Pentax lens brochures for the 645 lenses,

and one printed as early as 1986 (only two years after the camera was

introduced) describes the lens as a 300mm ED(IF). As I look around at

used ads, I would appreciate knowing for certain if the lens always

has been EDIF. Thanks.

Here's a little more information about contacting John Van Stelten. He repaired the lens separation on the taking lens of my Rollei 2.8E Planar.

 

John van Stelten, Focal Point Inc., 1017 South Boulder Road, Suite E-1, Louisville, CO 80027, Phone 303-665-6640, Fax 303-665-3803, E-mail: focalpt@ecentral.com, website: www.411web.com/F/FOCALPOINT/.

 

The other resource for this kind of work is Steve Grimes in Massachusetts. You can find him at www.skgrimes.com.

I've always heard that THE source for instructions manuals is John Craig of Craig Camera in Connecticut: P.O.Box 1637, Torrington, CT 06790. Phone:(860)496-9791 Fax:(860)496-0664. You might see if he has an original or copy for the SL2000F.

I found one old thread about the Hobo "point and shoot" 8x10 and 5x7 cameras sold by Bostick & Sullivan, but no user reviews. Has anyone tried one? They look kinda' fun. See www.bostick-sullivan.com/Hobo/welcome.htm

Scott:

 

One of the most eloquent and best-documented posts on MFD, on this or any other topic. I appreciate your thoughtfulness and time.

I pulled some samples from ten years of negatives and transparencies shot with a number of different inserts on the Pentax 645 - and that is what mine are too. So I believe your insert is fine as long as you are getting 15 exposures per roll (assuming you are using the original manual focus P645). That's what it is designed to do. The new AF version P645N must provide tighter spacing between frames, because it squeezes 16 exposures onto a roll of 120 film.

I agree with Mark. I've used a P645 for ten years for macro work with the 120mm, and with the 75mm reversed, and I find no image degradation due to mirror vibration. I was accustomed to using mirror lockup in 35mm cameras, so I worried about the lack of it when I first got the P645. Not for long. I don't find it necessary to take any special precautions, even in the "danger zone" of shutter speeds from 1/4 to 1/30 second.

 

Pentax touts the benefits of the special "mirror brake" that slows the mirror down before it reaches the top of the mirror box and returns to the viewing position. It sure seems to work.

Wendy:

 

This topic has been responsible for a lot of discussion and confusion (here and especially at the rec.photo.mediumformat newsgroup). You might want to take a look at the grey market discussion on Robert Monaghan's medium format website: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/hongkong.html.

Ray:

 

Colin was referring to the Pentax 67 and 67II, not the Pentax 645N.

 

The reason that the Pentax 67 is considered less studio suitable than the Mamiya RB and RZ is generally two-fold: (1) a flash sync speed of only 1/30 (unless you get the older 90mm or current 165mm leaf shutter lenses), and (2) the design (35mm style body) must be flipped up on its side for verticals, throwing a lot of weight off to the side of the tripod head (unless you use a verta-flip device to keep it centered). With the Mamiyas, of course, you simply rotate the back into the orientation you want without moving the camera.

I'm always a little surprised that so many people comment on the shutter sound of the Fuji 670 and 690s. To me they just sound like the shutters in my view camera lenses, which is what they are!

Denis:

 

<p>

 

Are you sure your friendly retailer didn't sell you a returned and

restocked holder? I'd find that more likely than Polaroid sending out

a new holder with a clip stuck inside. But who knows?

Let me add my voice to Howard's for feedback on the 6x9 (or 6x7 or

whatever MF you want to choose) digital vs. 4x5 "analog" print

comparison. I've been curious about this one for a little while, and

have spoken to a few people about it. My next step is an actual test

(I know, the only way for me to really know). But in the meantime...I

too would appreciate any information from folks who actually have made

that comparison already.

 

<p>

 

By the way, in my talks with Bill Nordstrom and the folks at Calypso

and Evercolor, they agree with Howard's thesis: they all say that a

digital print of a certain size from 6x7 film will beat a conventional

print of the same size from 4x5 film. Does anybody with experience

agree or disagree?

Randy:

 

Just to avoid confusion, don't you mean that you believe the vibration in the Pentax 67 is caused by the focal plane shutter, not the "big mirror?" Mamiya RB67s and RZ67s also are SLRs, so they have big mirrors too. The difference is that the P67 has a focal plane shutter in the body rather than leaf shutters in the lenses like the Mamiyas.

 

I just didn't want someone to think that the Mamiya RB and RZ didn't have mirrors!

I agree wholeheartedly with Patrick. I saw the Jack East article,

promptly got out the rulers and toothpicks, and checked the

groundglass on my year-old Toyo 45AX. I was shocked! The septum on

the first holder I checked was deeper (farther away from the lens)

than my groundglass. Then I checked another and another -- same

thing. Same story for my Polaroid 545i and Fuji QuickLoad holders.

So I decided that my groundglass must have been aligned improperly

(even though I hadn't noticed any focusing problems).

 

<p>

 

So I decided to do a series of real-world tests. Shots with

different holders with different focal lengths at different

magnifications (including extreme closeups like a frame-filling watch

face at more than 1:1)...and all wide open so that depth of field

wouldn't mask focusing errors. The focus was dead on (judged with

8x, 10x and 15x loupes).

 

<p>

 

Then I figured out why my camera was focusing perfectly even when the

ground glass/film holder measurements were different. My Toyo 45AX,

like Patrick's, has the fresnel on the inside of the ground glass.

That made the "ground glass" (actually the fresnel) measure closer

than the film holder. But the thorough engineers at Toyo adjusted

for it. I'd agree there's nothing to fear from a fresnel mounted on

the inside, so long as the manufacturer knows how to adjust for it.

 

<p>

 

So, David, rest easy that the folks at Toyo didn't screw up when they

mounted the fresnel on the inside. But if you're still concerned

about your friend's advice, and fear that only depth of field has

spared you from focusing errors -- try some shots wide open and find

out. I'll bet you'll find that Toyo was doing it right ten years ago

too.

Thanks to all so far. It sounds like Tito and Sergio both agree with

Ron Wisner that the G-Clarons are better performers than their

published specs would suggest. I too thought as Sean did that they

wouldn't have the coverage for 8x10, particularly at the shorter

focal lengths of 210mm, 240mm and 270mm. But Ron Wisner claims that

each of those lenses covers 8x10, despite Schneider's conservative

specifications, and performs well even at infinity (although perhaps

stopped down as Paul suggested - I don't recall Ron Wisner's advice

about that). It's the use of the 210 or 240 as a small, light

moderate wide-angle lens that is particularly intriguing.

We've gotten a little farther afield here than your original question. But since we have, and in the interest of covering the waterfront of possibilities to get movements with a medium format camera, there's another one I'm aware of: the Horseman view camera converter.

 

The Horseman VCC looks like the front standard and bed of a field camera. At the back, instead of a standard ground glass and sheet film back, there is a coupling ring to mount your 35mm SLR or some medium format SLRs. You focus through your MF camera's prism or waist-level finder just as you always do, rather than on a ground glass.

 

According to B&H's website, Horseman makes a mounting adapter for most 35mm camera brands, and for Pentax 645, Pentax 67 and Mamiya 645 cameras (all of which use focal plane shutters in the bodies). There's more on Horseman's web page, which also lists a Hasselblad adapter (http://www.horsemanusa.com/pd_frame032.html).

 

I haven't used one or seen one, but it sounds like an interesting product if you want to focus the way you're used to with your MF camera.

In response to Bill's suggestion that the monocular hood would be

better for just seeing the screen more easily -- it wasn't the case

for me. I tried the Toyo monocular hood on my 45AX but sent it back

because I couldn't see as well with it. The 1.5x magnifier is placed

at the back of the hood (like the exit pupil on binoculars or a 35mm

camera. My problem was that I couldn't get my eye close enought to it

to block extraneous light. Mostly all I could see was glare and

reflections. I don't know if it is because it is so much bigger than

the exit pupils for 35mm cameras or isn't inset far enough, but it

didn't work for me.

I've been using a 4x5 for about a year, with modern "fast" lenses, such as a 150mm/f5.6 and 210mm/f5.6. I now would like to move up to 8x10, and have questions about lens speed.

 

<p>

 

I've read wonderful things here and elsewhere about the performance of Schneider G-Clarons, as well as the Nikkor-M

300mm/f9 (Ron Wisner, in particular, seems to recommend the G-Clarons for 8x10 for focal lengths of 210mm on up). I've seen several Q&As about whether those f9 lenses are bright enough, but usually the

commenters are answering the question with respect to the use of fairly long lenses on 4x5 cameras (such as 270-305mm focal length). They advise that those f9 lenses are brighter than expected because, as long lenses for 4x5, the rays of light are coming straight back and are from the center of the image circle.

 

<p>

 

Regardless of the reason that most 4x5 users find a 270-305mm/f9 lens bright enough for 4x5, will they also be bright enough for 8x10? If that image circle is now spreading out to cover 8x10 instead of 4x5, I imagine that the outer portions of the ground glass could experience fall off that wouldn't be an issue with a 4x5.

 

<p>

 

In short, given that I am accustomed to faster 4x5 lenses, will I be happy (or adjust to) using a Nikkor-M 300mm/f9 or Schneider G-Clarons in the normal focal length range for 8x10? And what about with moderate wide angles, such as 210mm and 240mm? I don't relish the thought of the weight and larger filters of the much larger faster lenses, but I don't want to struggle with accurate focusing either (I tried a 75mm/f8 once on my 4x5, and I didn't like it very much).

Alan is right -- a 300mm lens would be the equivalent of a 105mm in

35mm. If you're looking for that length for a 4x5 Speed Graphic, you

might want to find a 300mm/f9 Nikkor-M. It's small and takes 52mm

filters. I don't have first-hand experience with it (yet), but it is

a darling of lens reviewers on Q. Tuan Luong's large format

photography home page. Take a look at the site --

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/photography/lf/ -- there's a lot

of good information there.