mikhail_r

They are Goerz Dagor series III copies (except the Symmars are made of different focal length cells while the original Dagors were symmetrical). Any information you can find on Dagors is valid for the f/6.8 Symmars, too.

For color imaging, the F/6.8 Symmars as well as the f/6.8 and f/7.7 Dagors and the series VII / VIIa Protars need a UV-blocking filter as all of them are very transparent in the UV - I mean a real filter like Wratten 2b, not a protector. 

<p>Success Report: -<br /><br />The shutter: 4 inch opening (7.5 inch housing) #6 Packard.<br /><br />The rubber bulb: total inside volume = 40 ml (it is for a blood pressure measuring device, and I guess it is smaller than the genuine Packard one). Price: US$ 3.00.<br /><br />The tubing: 5 mm inside diameter, 7 mm outside diameter, 1 mm wall thickness black silicone rubber. Price (from a medical supplier): US$ 2.68 per meter (= US$ 0.82 per foot).<br /><br />Tubing length: 46 meters (151 feet).<br />Tube inside volume = 900 ml (yes 22.5 times the volume of the bulb - which of course does not give out ALL the air when pressed!).<br /><br />THE PACKARD WORKS.<br /><br />In the BULB mode, it opens and closes perfectly (though somewhat slower then via the standard 4 feet tubing).<br /><br />The shutter's instantaneous mode is not available as it requires MUCH more pressure. With the instantaneous mode pin inserted, the shutter just works the same way as on "B". That suits me, as I don't want short exposures usually.<br /><br /><br />So, glory to the 19th century engineering masterpiece named Packard. No messing with batteries needed! I only wish my computer was THAT reliable.... ;)</p>

 

<p >John, thank you for your input. Was that commercial air release a DeGroff? As far as I know, only DeGroff uses virtually the same bulb and tubing as the Packard does. And with an other type of bulb and another type of tubing results may get different....</p>

<p>I have a large 4"-opening Packard shutter that works great, and I'm going to purchase a really long rubber tubing for it. But high quality silicone rubber tube is not very cheap, and besides I have to buy oversears and pay for the shipment too as I was unable to find a black one locally. And therefore I guess I'd better not buy any more then I could actually use. So, my question is,<br>

how long a tube is still OK to reliably open and close a Packard that size? What about a 100 feet? 200 feet? even more...? Any practical experience is welcome.<br>

(I don't want to switch to an electrical release type shutter.)<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>Got all the problems solved the same day... it's really nice to be part of such a knowlegable and friendly community. Thanks to all, VERY special thanks to David Sims!!!</p>

<p>I need spectral transmission / optical density data on some Wrattens discontinued several decades ago, like Wrateen ## 34, 49, 55, 57, 65 and some other ones. The KODAK PHOTOGRAPHIC FILTERS HANDBOOK, publication B-3, cited here:<br>

<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20020426165710/http://www.geocities.com/thombell/curves.html">http://web.archive.org/web/20020426165710/http://www.geocities.com/thombell/curves.html</a><br /><a href="http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/photos/other-filters.html">http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/photos/other-filters.html</a><br>

- does not mention those. So, my questions are: -<br>

(1) What publications do include that data? Where could I buy or download them?<br />(2) Could anybody please post at least the Wratten 34 (the one I'm intrested in most of all) filter spectral optical density (or transmission) data here?<br>

Thanks!</p>

<b>SVEMA</b> (when written in Cyrillic looks like this: <b>CBEMA</b>) is just an abbreviation from

<i><b>sve</b>tochuvstvitelniye <b>ma</b>terialy</i> which means <b>light-sensitive materials</b> in Russian.<p>

 

<i>Sveta</i> is a short for <i>Svetlana</i>, a Slavonic female name. The word is from <i>svet</i> which means

<b>light</b> in many (maybe all?) Slavonic languages.<p>

 

<b>Flower</b> in Slavonic languages is <i>tsvet</i> or <i>tsvetok</i>. The word <i>tsvet</i> also means

<b>color</b>.<p>

 

Back to Svema & Tasma <b>films</b>: yes the standard developer is a variation of Agfa 12, but any other

developer (D-76, Microphren, etc.) will do. Sad news is: the films were never standardized to have a fixed

developing time, and you had to read a new number in minutes on the box for any new factory emulsion run. So you

just can't go to any web page to get the correct developing time for <i>your</i> film.<p>

 

However, the <b>64</b> film (not the other ones!) is a <b>stop-gamma</b> emulsion. That means it never gets too

contrasty in overdevelopment. Instead, it just gets denser, gains much in speed and - gets much much grainier.

Better do not develop it for too long!<p>

 

Michael from Moscow

Great! Thank you.

 

And here I do see the front bokeh as well - also definitely not bad at all.

Lenses prized for their rear bokeh (almost always considered more important)

usually tend to give out a so-so to awful front one; this lens looks more like

neutral concerning 'front vs. rear'... the rear IMHO being just a little bit

better.

 

... I guess people who say 'it was not-so sharp so I got rid of it' just do not

shoot portraits. :)

> I had the 250 and liked it very much

 

I guess I'll, too. Anyway, my mind is already set up to buy it.

 

Thanks again for all the responses.

BTW, is the tested 180mm f/4.5 a 'Super' or an older one?

Many many thanks - that really shows the lens' character... and I'd say I tend

to like the glass. Some (not very) harsh bokeh spots could be further modified

to a degree by substituting a graduated 'anti-center'-filter for the regular

aperture blades I guess, and with that done - I don't see any reason not to use

the 250mm with much pleasure.

> I dont think this is what your looking for

 

You're right, those are all Mamiya SLR & RF, not TLR shots. Anyway, thanks - nice to look at (though definitely not a clue to the problem)...

Would anybody be so kind to post any links to pictures (jpegs) taken with the

Mamiya TLR 250mm f/6.3 lens, please? Preferably containing some troublesome

junk (bare trees, ets.) in front and behind the plane of focus... have tried

google & yahoo with no results. :(

 

Thanks.

 

P.S.: I'm not worried about sharpness or even flare, just pictural qualities of

that glass (going to make tiny portrait contact prints, old CDV style).