micah_marty1

I'm not usually a "testy" kind of guy, but. . . .

<p>

I've heard many comments over the past few years about the limited

coverage of the renowned Schneider 47mmXL lens: that it "just barely"

covers 4x5, or even that it's functional primarily for 6x12 and

smaller rollfilm formats and of little utility on 4x5. On the other

hand, my experience with this lens had indicated that appreciable

movements were possible even with 4x5 (though I usually use a 6x12

back on the camera), and I'd heard that Schneider tends to be

conservative when listing image circles.

<p>

So last week I made a series of photographs with different degrees of

movement to discern at what point vignetting begins with the 47mmXL

lens and 4x5 film. My Cambo Wide camera has millimeter marks so that

as you move the geared rise or shift (you get your choice by rotating

the lens panel 90 degrees--and by rotating the camera) you can see

exactly how much movement youB re using. I don't usually go to all of

this trouble to test a lens, but this is a unique lens.

<p>

The test:

<p>

1. The lens is serial #14583557, manufactured (according to

Schneider's website) in late 1995. The lens is in a helical mount,

with distance- and depth-of-field markings; I don't know whether

Schneider or Cambo does the helical mounting. Other than the helical

mount and markings, I believe it is optically identical to the

unmounted versions of the 47mmXL.

<p>

2. The lens was racked all the way to infinity to provide a "worst

case" measurement. (Obviously the image circle would be larger if I'd

used hyperfocal options: for instance, according to Schneider's d.o.f.

tables, everything from 2.4 feet to infinity is in focus when a 47mm

lens set at f16 is focused at 5 feet. The image circle for any lens at

the film plane would, of course, be larger at a 5-foot focus distance

than it is at the infinity focus distance used in this test.)

3. I set the lens at f16, probably my most commonly-used aperture with

this lens and the aperture Schneider uses in its image-circle

measurements for this lens. The image circle at the film plane would

be slightly smaller with f11, slightly larger at f22 (the lens closes

down to a minimum aperture of f32, effectively a pinhole).

<p>

4. I used Kodak Readyload E100S 4x5 film in Kodak's (now-discontinued)

Readyload holder, with a diagonal of what looks to me like 153.5mm. My

Fuji Quickload 4x5 transparencies measure out almost exactly the same,

but I didn't have any unexposed Fuji film in the fridge so I didn't

use it for this test. I've never used 4x5 film holders or Polaroid, so

I don't know what the diagonal is there, but since the 4x5 lens chart

on this website lists 153.7mm as the diagonal for 4x5, I assume these

kinds of holders are around this figure also.

<p>

5. I used Schneider's center filter on the lens during the test. The

rear threads of this filter are 67mm and the front are 86mm. I do not

believe this filter causes any vignetting, but I wanted it on during

the test even if it did cause vignetting because I wouldn't think of

using a full rise without it. In other words, a vignetting test of

this lens without a center filter wouldn't be a "real-world" test to

me.

<p>

6. I ran the test "in both directions," i.e., rising to one side of

the lens and then inverting the camera 180 degrees and rising in the

other direction, just to be sure the lens wasn't mounted off-center on

the lens panel (it wasn't, as both sides tested identically).

7. I photographed a blank sky (with skyline at the bottom),

overexposing by 2 or 3 stops so I could clearly see any vignetting in

the upper corners.

<p>

8. The first day I tried rises of 10, 15, and 20 mm, first in

landscape (horizontal) mode, then in portrait (vertical) mode (in both

directions; see #6 above). After seeing the results of the processed

film and estimating at what point vignetting began, the second day I

narrowed down the movements, trying 16, 17, 18, and 19mm of rise in

landscape mode, then 11, 12, 13, and 14mm of rise in portrait mode.

<p>

The results:

<p>

With 4x5 film (153.5 diagonal), at infinity focus and at f16, the

47mmXL lens apparently allows ~17.5mm of rise in the landscape mode

and ~12.5mm of rise in the portrait mode.

While this may not sound like much to those accustomed to longer focal

length lenses, in light of this lens' focal length and flange focal

distance it is quite impressive to me (the rear element is only about

an inch in front of the film plane when the lens is focused at

infinity). With such a wide-angle lens, even large objects in the

image (e.g., buildings on the Chicago skyline in my test) are often

only a few millimeters tall on the film, so 17.5 millimeters is

significant in my book.

<p>

Note that I used the center filter in this test, as I have found that

this filter is advisable anytime ANY movements are used (and often

when they are not, except when handholding the camera for

street-shooting. In those cases the need for 2 extra stops of speed

often outweighs light falloff considerations). At full rise without

the center filter, it is impossible to judge vignetting even when the

center of the image is overexposed 3 or 4 stops, so great is the light

falloff at the edge of the image circle. Again, considering the

120-degree coverage of this lens, this light falloff is not

surprising.

I don't have a way of posting my test photos at the moment, but anyone

with questions, comments, criticisms of my test methods, or

corroborating/conflicting test results can e-mail me directly or post

their remarks here. . . .

<p>

||||||||||||||||||

//////////////////

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

<p>

<p>

<p>

Let�s also acknowledge that many of AA�s most-read writings�-including

the "Examples" book�-were done in the final years of his life (in his

late 70s and early 80s) and his memory may have been rusty. The

O�Sullivan "White House Ruin" photo is a good example. In "Examples"

Adams writes, "I had stood unaware in almost the same spot on the

canyon floor, about the same month and day, and at nearly the same

time of day that O�Sullivan must have made his exposure, almost

exactly sixty-nine years earlier." . . . But in the book "Our National

Parks" is reprinted a letter from AA to the Newhalls (dated October

26, 1941) in which AA had written, "I photographed the White House

Ruins from almost the identical spot and time of the O�Sullivan

picture! Can�t wait to [get to the darkroom to] see what I got!" I

seriously doubt this kind of discrepancy can be ascribed to an

intention to deceive or to hide the source of his inspiration. (Just

as baffling: both books date the photo to 1942, even though the letter

recalling it was written in 1941!--but then, Adams acknowledged in

"Examples" that he was terrible with dates.)

<p>

It�s always tricky to try to read too much into the mind of another

person without meeting them, volumes of memoirs notwithstanding. For

instance, what if I admitted that I think it�s extremely arrogant when

non-disabled people in these forums literally won�t lift a finger (by

using the "Shift" key) to make their letters readable, instead

requiring hundreds of other people to do extra work? (I usually just

ignore such posts, but the title on this one made it impossible to

pass up.) We each have our own idiosyncracies, and AA is no exception.

I don�t think Adams was a genius-�to my eye, Weston and Strand and

Sudek seemed to show more of those qualities-�but the breadth and

depth of AA�s influence (technically, environmentally/politically,

financially�-remember, he completely transformed the valuation of

photographs�-as well as in getting photography respected in artistic

circles) require even his harshest critics to acknowledge his

important role in the history of photogra

A typo in my post above: Ms. Kras wrote "They keep our national parks

alive" (not "park"); she was referring to entire National Park

Service, not just Zion. Also, at the end I asked for "thoughts,

comments?", not, like, "comme."

<p>

<><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><

Sara Louise Kras wrote to View Camera magazine (Sept/Oct issue) to

express her dismay over the "no car" policy at Zion National Park in

Utah (a shuttle-bus-only transport policy is also likely to be phased

in at other over-exhausted national parks). She and her husband drove

up to Zion�s gate with "an 8x10 and a 4x5 camera with several lenses"

but were apparently unprepared to walk very far from their car (or

from a shuttle bus) with their equipment.

<p>

"Anyone who has visited a national park in the past can see why the

bus system is being put into place," Ms. Kras concedes. "Wildlife was

diminishing and the overall nature experience was becoming quite

frustrating and maddening fighting the traffic."

<p>

On the other hand, she says, "park officials should be aware of

photographers, painters, and other artisans [who] wish to communicate

their experience through an art medium. Special concessions should be

given to these artists. They keep our national park alive through

proxy for those [who] cannot visit them."

<p>

Ms. Kras doesn�t suggest a policy for determining who�s a photographer

and who isn�t, nor does she mention such considerations as balancing

the wishes of photographers and painters vs. the wishes of others who

may want to drive a car in these parks (such as those who are merely

disabled or elderly but not particularly artistic). Thoughts,

comme

American/Parisian photographer Man Ray tells this story (don't try this with important clients!):

<p>

". . . I've even taken photographs without a lens on my camera. Once, I had to photograph a painter and I arrived with my studio camera and tripod and everything. I started to set up, but I'd forgotten the lens. I knew the size of my lens because I prescribed my own glasses, I knew optics so well. I knew that my lens had a 12-inch focal length, but of course I realized it would be a very fuzzy picture. I had a roll of tape and taped my own eyeglass lens onto the opening in my camera and just let the black cloth down, with a little hole in it, to diaphragm it. I opened the cloth and let it down, and I got the portrait of Matisse--a beautiful, soft-focus photograph with all the details visible."

<p>

So next time someone with glasses asks you, "What lens should I buy?" you can (if you believe Man Ray) just tell them to save their money for film (because they'll probably want to bracket a bit!). . . .

Pardon me if I�m out of bounds here, but I�ve often wondered if large-format photographers talk too much about the travails of their chosen medium. Go to a large-format photographer�s website and you�ll likely find lengthy discourse on the heavy equipment, the unwieldy format, the time-consuming setup, the expensive film, the demanding pre- and post-exposure steps to making the ultimate print. Ditto for books by and about LF photographers: in the introduction or the back there�s invariably an essay or a note explaining that readers should not expect similar results unless they are prepared to suffer greatly for their art the way that photographer does, on a daily basis. Even on this website newcomers are (to my reading) over-warned about the huge leap they are making, from "easy" 35mm and MF photography over to "our side," excruciatingly difficult LF photography.

<p>

Don�t get me wrong: I�m presently working in 4x5 and 8x10 (and have worked in 11x14), and I agree that large format photography can be very demanding, expensive, unwieldy, and frustrating. But must we repeatedly tell everyone it is so? Must that always be the starting point, the most important thing to stress about the art? I guess it troubles me when it goes beyond legitimate advice or explanation to making "the struggle" the primary badge of honor, elevating us LF martyrs above the teeming "lesser endowed" masses, with their puny cameras and postage-stamp sized film. We end up emphasizing means over ends, accentuating the creator more than the creation, focusing on "the tools" and "the process" instead of the final product. It�s almost as though we want photographs�and photographers�to be judged based on the format used rather than the final result. A great photograph can�t speak for itself, we�re saying: viewers must be told how much energy was expended to produce it before they can decide whether they like the image or not.

<p>

But what really makes a great photograph? I recall the words of a younger photographer who was lucky enough to spend time in the darkroom with large-format impresario Paul Strand, often acknowledged to be one of the greatest photographers (and fussiest printers) of all time. Strand, the younger man wrote, "never let me forget that the ultimate goal was to produce a �picture,� not a �print.�"

<p>

Thoughts?

<p>

||||||||||||

Note to Michael K. and others with the Nikkor 150 SW: watch those lens

caps too! When I bought my 150 SW (many years before the internet

would have told me others were having the same problem), I thought

there must be some mistake; the lens caps clearly contacted the front

(and, I believe, the rear) element. One bouncing ride in a car trunk

with the lens caps on, I figured, and the lenses would be permanently

scarred.

<p>

I first tried putting a gasket inside the lens cap to keep it away

from the lens, but the cap kept falling off. My solution--imitate it

at your own risk!--was to GRADUALLY and carefully heat only the center

of both lens caps over a gas stove and then gently bulge the center of

the cap outward until it cooled into a convex shape. This fix has held

for 10 years now. . . .

<p>

-----------------------------

Having harshly criticized B&H on this web site before, I feel should acknowledge when they do well, and I must say that their new "Professional Photo Sourcebook" is probably the best photo catalog anywhere. It�s 8.5 x 11, about an inch and a half thick, 600 pages long, and is devoted entirely to medium- and large-format cameras, along with accessories useable in all formats. Unlike the glossier Calumet catalogs, it�s not in color, but then 99% of photographic items are gray or black anyway and the new B&H catalog has pictures of many things that aren�t shown anywhere else.

<p>

How detailed is it? The section on large-format cameras and lenses is 122 pages long and shows a lot of things you can�t find out about anywhere else (e.g., 12 pages on ArcaSwiss, 24 pages on Linhof, even 4 pages on Wisner).

<p>

At least as useful are the accessory sections of the catalog: 66 pages of bags and cases, 70 pages of filters (lots of goodies here for LF users, especially if you've struggled to find solutions for large and odd-sized front lens elements), 22 pages on light meters, 66 pages on tripods, and 46 pages of otherwise-hard-to-learn-anything-about "pro accessories," ranging from lens hoods and step-up rings to repair tools and aftermarket MF backs. There also are informative introductory sections on things like light meters, filters, and large-format camera movements, good primers (and reminders) for almost any photographer.

<p>

The catalog says "$9.95" on the cover, although I would guess it�s sent free to recent or regular customers; for those who haven�t bought there in awhile, there may be a discount arrangement on your 10 bucks when you place your first order (check www.bhphotovideo.com). Anyway, congratulations to the folks at B&H on a job very well done!

Thanks for your input, Gordon, and yes, you're right--B&H is, or must be, doing quite a bit right. My orders from them are in the dozens, and although I've had several serious problems I do keep going back (more on that below).

<p>

I posted this identical thread in Photo.net, where it was promptly killed by the monitor of Photo.net (I presume because he's an ardent booster of B&H who thought my comments unfair--or perhaps merely boring!) but before that thread disappeared it had 7 or 8 interesting additions. Rather than pursuing a fruitless discussion of B&H's goodness and flaws--which wasn't my primary intent--I'll summarize for large-format users a couple of the relevant responses from Photo.net:

<p>

> A guy named Brad said that getting service from Nikon for gray market equipment is a nightmare; they really don't want to touch it. While large-format lenses aren't likely to have as many parts to go wrong as Brad's f5 camera, my suggestion of "caveat emptor" applies here as well: saving a hundred bucks up front may cost much more in the long term if your gray market item needs repair. If this is true, it certainly makes me feel better about buying a USA warranty lens!

<p>

> Two subsequent respondents to Brad said that they have had Nikon gray market stuff that needed repair and Nikon fixed it--but at significant expense. Both respondents said they'd buy "gray" again; they understand up front that they're taking a risk if something breaks, and they're prepared to pony up a bit extra at repair time.

<p>

> One respondent said he didn't like whiners who "need equipment yesterday." The truth is that not all such situations involve hobbyists eager to play with a new toy (mine certainly doesn't!); most "it needs to be done yesterday" situations involve two other key words: "client" and "deadline."

<p>

> Another respondent asked why I don't go somewhere else besides B&H. As I failed to make clear in my initial post, and as Gordon helped clarify, B&H does do a lot of things right and no one's forcing me to buy from them. However, there also aren't as many alternatives as it might seem:

<p>

--The two most obvious alternatives to B&H are Adorama and Camera World of Oregon. I've had many more problems with Adorama than B&H and thus refuse to buy there; Camera World of Oregon, which I patronize as often as possible, unfortunately doesn't stock large-format gear--only 35mm and MF.

<p>

--For a 35mm user, there are hundreds of places that sell Nikon. Unfortunately (and this is a major bummer), Nikon will not let dealers carry their large-format lenses unless they carry the whole Nikon line, including 35mm. This knocks out of contention some of the best smaller, user-friendly dealers like F-Stops Here and Darkroom Innovations, for whom it would be pointless (and impossibly expensive) to carry Nikon 35mm stuff.

<p>

--Two respondents recommended Calumet. I like Calumet and have bought tons of stuff from them (including 2 LF cameras). However, their prices can either be very competitive or fairly exorbitant, depending on the line. With 35mm, they compete with NY mail-order houses. For Nikon LF lenses, however, their prices are 20-30 percent higher than NY--on top of which I must pay almost 9 percent in sales tax because I live in a state where they have a store. So I can't justify buying Nikon LF from Calumet. But I do like them and recommend them for many things.

<p>

>For all of these reasons, there aren't as many viable alternatives to B&H as it might at first seem, especially for certain items (like Nikon LF lenses, my next one of which will probably be bought from--you guessed it--B&H!). I think my point should have been expressed not as "B&H is no good" but that "It's cool that B&H is now advertising gray market Nikon, but know what you're getting into."

<p>

-------------------

<p>

I didn't expect to go on this long, but hope some of this information is useful to participants in this excellent large-format home-page. Thanks for staying tuned, and again, thanks to Gordon for noting that B&H is not the fire-breathing dragon I made them out to be in my frustrated first post....

For the first time that I�ve seen, B&H is listing gray market Nikon

lenses (including large format) in its printed ads. This is good news, as the savings can be substantial, especially on the most expensive lenses (e.g., a 500mm 35mm lens costs $4299 gray, $5139 USA). The catch is that they may not tell you about the potential savings unless you mention it.

<p>

I found out about this on January 5, when I ordered a 120mm Nikkor

large-format lens over the phone; the guy said (note the euphemisms for gray vs. USA) "If you want the B&H warranty, it�s $1120; if you want the Nikon warranty it�s $1130" (I had not ventured a price). I said, "Well, if it�s only 10 bucks extra I�ll take the Nikon warranty" and placed the order, shipped 2nd Day Air.

<p>

Later that morning, I checked the new issue of Shutterbug and discovered that the B&H ad lists this lens for $1020 gray, $1120 USA, both of which prices are less than I was quoted over the phone. I called them immediately, pointing out that I would have chosen to save $100 if they had been honest with me; they said, Oops, did we give you the wrong prices?--must have been "a computer problem"(!) and told me that when the lens arrives I should "simply" send it back with a copy of the invoice and they�ll send me a gray market version and "credit the difference." Unfortunately, by that time I�ll have paid the cost of 2nd Day Air shipping to me (twice)--I need the lens yesterday--plus return shipping to them (once). That�s at least $50 total, plus I�ll have lost a week without the lens I need, plus I�m out in the field where it�s not so "simple" to find a place that will ship it for me.

<p>

After stewing over this for awhile, I decided I had no sensible alternative but to keep the lens, pay $100 more than I would have if they�d been honest with me, and curse them yet again. I got to wondering whether, if I�d paid $1120 for the "B&H warranty" (gray) version that actually sells for $1020, they would have credited me $100 when I called them on it. (To be fair, I should note that when I called them back one more time and pointed out that I�d been overcharged $10, they promised to credit my MasterCard for $10.)

<p>

Grrrr. Why aren�t there more alternatives to B&H? I�ve gotten screwed by them more times than I can count, always in the $40-100 range (i.e., enough to infuriate me but too small to make it worth returning the problematic item). I know that many photo.netters (including Philg) don�t have problems with B&H, and I agree that you can do well

(pricewise) there BUT ONLY IF YOU WATCH EVERY SINGLE MOVE, which is why I�m posting this: so other buyers can be better informed than I was. The folks at B&H seem to be masters at the art of slipping little things through and only admitting their "mistake" if you call them on it; otherwise the buyer will never find out. Of course, that�s probably why they�re so profitable....

<p>

Caveat emptor, alas.

<p>

(P.S. If Henry Posner or anyone else at B&H ever monitors Photo.net, an explanation of the company�s official policy on this would be much

appreciated....)

<p>

Asked by Micah (MicahMarty@aol.com) on January 06, 1998.