j._law

To add to Mr. Hicks' comments -- anyone remember the old Ektar 135/4.7

or whatever it was that was mounted on the old Speed Graphics?<p>

Heh. Don't try to shift those.<p>

But most modern 150mm, LF-specific lenses should cover 4x5 without a

problem.

-jon

I just bought a Toyo 45AX, and I like it.<p>

However, it replaced an old Speed Graphic, which had the very nice option of fitting the lens into the body when it folds up! This makes the whole package infinitely more portable when you don't have to wrap and protect the lens/lensboard separately from the body. <p>

The new Roddie 150/5.6 that I have with the Toyo definitely does NOT fit when the body is folded up. I also have a standard recessed board, which kind of almost fits it but doesn't quite -- it brings the lens back enough into the base that the front is about 5mm too far out, and the back element is large enough that it pushes against the fresnel groundglass.<p>

Are there any widely-available classic/older lenses in the 135/150/180 standard range that will fit, probably with the recessed board, into the 45AX, CLOSED? Chris Perez's website mentions some very teeny Xenar 135/5.6 class lenses, but I've never seen any in used stores, so I don't know whether they would even possibly fit. <p>

I suspect the 240/9 class lenses might be small enough -- does anyone know for certain?<p>

Thanks!<p>

-jon

I've found the Ultra 50 to be inadequate for almost any function. Its

saturation is beyond even Velvia's to the point of being grotesque. I

have a nice sunset shot on 120 Ultra 50, but the film seems to be quite

flawed.

<p>

First, its response to colours is bizarre, at best. It seems that its

layers are over-reactive, or at least, the compensentory layers don't

seem to be sensitive enough. A red rose comes out bright magenta;

correcting for this in the filter pack is rather difficult.

<p>

Second, it seems to exhibit weird reciprocity effects very early on. At

speeds slower than 1/30th it seems to pick up a cyan hue. It is also

very sensitive to the cyan hues of the evening hours.

<p>

The 135 version seems to be more grotesque than the 120 version; the

120 one at least has fine grain, where the 135 one doesn't.

<p>

I've felt with some tweaking this film could be great, but I've been

disappointed, on the whole.

<p>

-jon

Eric:

<p>

Oh... I was looking for a fast wide -- the Zeiss 35/1.4 is about

$1000, and the Sigma 28/1.8 is $164. The Zeiss 25/2.8 is $769, and it's

said to be of somewhat lower quality than the others.

<p>

The 35 that I have is a 35/2.8, and I really want an extra stop or

stop and a half -- for low-light, you reach for every single stop you

can get. Even one stop is the difference between a 1/15th or a 1/30th

shutter speed (not-handholdable, or yes-handholdable), or between using

ISO 400 or ISO 800 film.

<p>

I've got the Zeiss 200/3.5 (for $300) and it seems to fill my needs

pretty well. It even seems a bit long -- I don't really need a long

tele, after all. For the price of the 300/2.8, you could buy a Canon

EOS-1n, 600/4, and 300/4 (or if you look around, a 300/2.8.), so Zeiss

teles are kind of stupid. *grin*

<p>

It turns out that B&H actually had one last one in stock (and haven't

gotten any more in the last ... 3 months or so) so I ordered that one.

If you're curious I'll give you an update on how well it performs.

<p>

-jon

Let me rephrase.

<p>

Does anyone know _where you can buy one still, at a reasonable price,

without getting ripped off, whether or not Sigma actually is still

producing them?_

<p>

-jon

I currently have a Contax/Zeiss system, and as there is no reasonably priced available fast wide (the $1000 35/1.4 and the now-discontinued $1000 28/2 are both crazy) I have been looking at the Sigma 28/1.8 II.

<p>

1. Does anyone have one of these? I am used to standard prime quality -- not necessarily in Zeiss (the 35/2.8 is really quite good!), but in any major manufacturer. A Canon FD 35/2 or Nikon 35/2 calibre has plenty of performance for me. I don't usually enlarge 35mm past 6x9"; I'm not too fussy about edge sharpness and edge illumination. I need to know if the centre of the frame is very sharp wide open, or deathly unsharp, like the Sigma 70-210 UC II?

<p>

2. Does anyone know if Sigma still makes them in Contax/Yashica mount? B&H, CWO, Adorama, and Calumet all have not seen one. Where can I get one at a reasonable price where I won't get ripped off?

<p>

Thanks!

<p>

-jon

To be completely off topic, there is an adapter for Hasselblad lenses

to Contax 35mm SLR bodies, and from Contax 35mm SLR lenses to Contax G

bodies.

<p>

-jon

Mr Lindrich, was the Hoya a Softener A/B? or was it a Diffuser?

<p>

I noticed the Hoya Softeners are the same technique as the Softars, but

somehow just don't look as good.

<p>

-jon

Coming from my litigious-happy school (read the address) I recently had

a long, long talk about photographing buildings on campus.

<p>

I was carrying around my 4x5 (and being a student, obviously doing it

for personal pleasure... but that's a different story altogether) and I

was hassled by a security guard here about "illegal to photograph the

campus for profit" until I provided ID, upon which I was not physically

thrown out but "persuaded" to leave the building. (I just didn't have a

class in that particular one at that time.)

<p>

Turns out that as it's a private property, but publically accessible

(no fences) they can't have a problem with you photographing it per se,

but publishing it, on the other hand, will get you thrown into a

copyright suit so fast you won't know what hit you.

<p>

You need to get their permission, a fairly large fee and cut of your

profits, as well as a $1,000,000 (!) bond (in case you don't follow

their instructions) in order to secure copyright privileges to

distribute for profit anything with an identifiable image of any campus

building, campus logo, the name, any likeness... you get the idea.

<p>

So now when any security people come up to talk to me, I just rattle

off some names of people higher up and tell them to talk to these

officials. Usually that helps. I tried to get the President of the

college to sign a little form saying that it's ok for me to be on

campus, but he felt that wasn't necessary. *grin*

<p>

-jon

In my experience, I put on a "soft filter" on my Elan II with 28-105USM

and the AF performed very poorly. It hunted frequently and often was

unable to achieve a lock.

<p>

When I tried Hoya's Softener (the one with the little dimples) it was a

little better, but I still had to revert to manual focus fairly often.

<p>

HTH.

<p>

-jon

Fine -- You finally goaded me into commenting! =)

<p>

No, I did not own a Kiev 88, but yes, I have owned a Kiev 60 and the

80/2.8 and the 250/5.6 lenses (i think). AFAIK, the 80/2.8 on the 60

and the 88 are the same construction.

<p>

I owned them for a sum total of about 4 days. I shot three rolls of

chrome film and I was utterly dissatisfied.

<p>

The lenses, at any aperture, even at f16, were far unsharper than the

crappy RB 127/3.8 that I used for a while. The 80 was prone to flare

and had some distortion; the 250 was just too big for me. It looked

like there was some flocking problems, but I didn't investigate too

long.

<p>

The shutter was rather off at the upper 3 speeds and the lower two. My

chromes were about 1/2 to 1 stop off.

<p>

That's my experience with the Kiev 60.

<p>

-jon

Well, with the advent of the new Contax AF (passive) 645, with USM (fulltime) Zeiss lenses, focal plane shutter of 1/4000 and syncs to 1/125, vacuum back (for 220 film) 2.5fps, bracketing, interchangeable prisms, fingers, backs, focussing screens... well....

<p>

If I had the funds, I would replace all my 35mm contax with this puppy in a jiffy. The problem is that I don't have the funds. Everything here is what I want in a so-called portable system. The other disadvantage is that it has no superzoom (and i doubt will ever have one.) But it does have a 80/2 Planar, which is just about fast enough for me.

<p>

Which is, of course, why I'm going to stick with 35mm -- that, and because I can use the 1,4/50 and 1,4/85 -- that extra stop or 2 (compare hasselblad zeiss 2,8/80) DOES make a difference to me when I'm just barely pushing the shutter speed for handhelds.

<p>

Now if only someone could give me $6k to play with (sigh).

<p>

This camera just rocks.

<p>

So realistically, the advantages of 35mm are: it can be very small, for PJ purposes; a MF camera by necessity is not. It has very fast lenses (1,4 or 1,0) whereas most MF ones are 2,8 or slower. The FPS rate can be much faster on 35mm (5, 7, 8, or 10fps compared to < 2).

<p>

OTOH, MF cameras do have leaf shuttesr to sync at 1/500 or 1/1000. Some high end 35mm cameras can sync at 1/250.

<p>

That's my cursory take on it.

<p>

-jon

Natural as compared to crossprocessed RVP or Agfa Ultra 50.

<p>

Sure, crossprocessed RVP will give you a printable neg, with a LOT of saturation and punch... but it's less natural than RVP on ciba.

<p>

*shrug*

<p>

That's my opinion of natural.

To the best of my knowledge, _NO_ neg film on any paper will match the saturated, natural look of RVP.

<p>

Agfa's Ultra 50 doesn't do it; neither do the poppier Fuji neg films (Superia, Reala). Sometimes, Super-G (Superia) on Kodak Ultra II RA-4 paper, or the polyester Fujiflex paper (very pricey!!) will be pretty good, but I've never seen any neg that has the saturation, pop, and tonality of a ciba off an RVP.

<p>

Someone, please correct me... I'd love to have a neg/paper combo that emulates this. =)

<p>

-jon

Tiffen's contrast reducing filters suck. Despite what they say, I'm

not impressed. Basically all they do is introduce a crapload of flare

into the image, causing a "reduction of contrast" -- but at the

expense of detail in the shadows.

<p>

Oh, that's good. Blacks aren't black, they're a kind of greyish, dusty

blobby area -- and it's not so sufficient to overexpose to compensate,

because it's flare, not just a reduction of light. I shot a couple of

b/w shots with this filter... and promptly have not used it since.

Anyone want to buy a 77mm Tiffen Ultra Contrast 3 filter, cheap?

<p>

Anyhow, that's just my take. YMMV; who knows? Maybe you don't like

detail.

What are your alternatives?

<p>

I don't think anyone makes an ISO 25 colour neg film in 120.

<p>

The only one before was Ektar 25, and that was discontinued. RZ25 only comes in 135 -- in fact, any Royal Gold only comes in 135.

<p>

Agfapan APX25 might come in 120, but that's only for B/W. Ilford Pan-F is 50, but again, B/W.

<p>

There really isn't a whole lot of "ultra-slow" (what a funky moniker for a ISO25 film...whatever happened to TechPan at 6?) emulsions on the market right about now... a shame, because I've been forced into shooting 4x5 for the grain I like. *grin*

<p>

-jon

The best and only way I've been able to process my 4x5 without scratching and uneveness is with the BTZS tubes

<p>

(www.darkroom-innovations.com)

<p>

Pricey, for sure, at $150 for 6-tube 4x5 kit, which is just a bit of plastic.

<p>

But I was sick of all the other methods:

<p>

Trays always got uneven development, splotches, and worst, scratches.

<p>

Dip and Dunk tanks (like the HP Combi-Plan and the Yankees) got uneven development, especially near the edges.

<p>

I've only used the tubes a few times, but they seem to be the best.

<p>

-jon

What is strange is that I agree with Mr. Eaton, and not with anyone who thinks the older © lenses are sharp.

<p>

I shot with an RB Pro-S and a 127/3.8 lens for a while. Unacceptably soft! It was so bad that I thought I was mis-focussing for a while; I brought in the camera to a local shop to have the focussing screen and back aligned, and they said it was in good working order. I did some bracket-focus tests, and it really seems that this lens really just doesn't resolve that well, even stopped down.

<p>

Perhaps I had a dud, but the Kiev 60 with the standard 80/2.8 at f8 resolved better than the 127/3.8 I used, at any aperture.

<p>

Needless to say at apertures at or above f8, the Schneider Xenar on my old Rollei was far sharper than the 127/3.8.

<p>

Granted, I thought it worked well for portraits (head and shoulders) despite a little bit of "nose extension" distortion.

<p>

I recently traded it up for a Toyoview and a Rodenstock 150/5.6 Sironar, and am considerably more pleased with the resolution (but this is probably due to the larger image size and the fact that I tend to shoot at f22 or higher with the LF rather than f8 or f16.)

<p>

Just my $0.02.

<p>

-jon

Jason Buchanan, Lanier Berknard explains it well. Let me try to add to his discussion.

<p>

General lens design says that the focal point (place where the rays converge "in focus" occurs when the rear-most element of the lens group is a distance from the focal plane equal to the focal length of the lens (50mm, 135mm, etc.) That means with a 50mm lens, the back of the group has to be 50mm away from the focal plane.

<p>

This is not a problem with "normal" lenses and tele lenses, because you can always keep moving the lensgroup away from the plane.

<p>

On the other hand, you have a problem when it comes to true wide angles.

<p>

A true 35mm wide angle means that the lens must be 35mm away from the focal plane. With any camera with a mirror, the mirror must be in the path first. This means that physically, it is only possible to put the lensgroup a certain distance close to the focal plane. The existence of the mirror, however, means that the lens can't extend back into the camera body without extending literally through the mirror.

<p>

Old designers used to force the user to lock up the mirror, and insert the lens so the rear element could protrude through the path of the mirror and rest close to the focal plane.

<p>

The way current lens designers work around this is to make a "retrofocus" design, which "fools" the focal plane of the lens to be farther back than with a true wide angle. In order to accomplish this, there is inherently more distortion in the design.

<p>

This is because symmetrical designs by their nature are low in distortion, but a true symmetrical design also implies a true wide angle. In order to create a retrofocus design, you can't use a symmetrical design, and this introduces distortion.

<p>

Thus, Zeiss or not Zeiss, Sigma or not Sigma, any SLR must use a retrofocus style design when putting together a wide angle. Zeiss and Schneider merely are very good at designs that reduce this distortion. Zeiss small format (Contax SLR), Zeiss Medium format (Hassleblad (non SWC), Rollei, Pentacon, etc.) all require a mirror for their SLR designs.

<p>

This means that they all use retrofocus designs. You can tell because the Distagon design is the name of a retrofocus design. Any SLR uses Distagon-class lenses.

<p>

The really awesome wides (true wides) are the Biogons, which are only implemented in rangefinders (and the SWC!) and large-format cameras, which do not require the presence of a mirror.

<p>

This is why the Contax G1 series, old Contax rangefinders, Hasselblad SWC and large-format cameras can mount a Biogon, but no other camera. (The reason why the SWC can is because it has no mirror. Just a back and a lensmount; you view through an additional scope.)

<p>

Hope this helps (hope i'm right!)

<p>

=)

<p>

-jon

My impression was that the Fuji 670 rangefinders did not have a meter

built-in, which makes for really irritating necessity of either

learning the light really well, or bringing a hand-held meter.

<p>

Can someone confirm this? (B&H's catalog doesn't list whether it does

or doesn't) =)

<p>

Thanks!

<p>

-

Definitely. Very obvious... I have shots from Delta 100 in 135 and in

6x7, and enlargements to 8x10 are damn obvious which has the more

tonality. The grain is not _so_ obvious, but it is the tones and the

warmth that is very obvious from the 6x7 neg. It's just so smooth and

crisps in the edges, seamless in the highlights. Kind of like the

difference between 8 and 16 bit depth monitors.

<p>

6x7 versus 4x5, enlarged to 8x10, is far less obvious... more like 16

and 24 bit -- some areas have noticable tonality advantage, but not

that significant.

<p>

I'd say 35mm to 6x7 jump is like the 6x7 to 8x10 contact print jump.

<p>

Just my two bits

I have a Schneider Componon 150/5.6 floating around -- can I mount it on a 4x5 and have it work?

What is the coverage of this lens, and what is the suggestiong regarding in general mounting of enlarging lenses on a board? Can I throw on a Copal 0 or 1 shutter as an afterthought?

Thanks.

-jon

Well, let's stop a minute and compare resolutions. <p>

The yashinon 4-element Tessar clone has performance listed at: <a href="http://home.att.net/~j..harper/lens.html"> The Yashica 124G Page</a> which shows that wide open, it has a resolution of 35/25. Even at f5.6 it has 63/32, and only until f11 does it have 79/50 and at f16, 71/50. <p>

According to Kalimex <a href="http://www.dedal.cz/Ln_MF_EN.html"> Optics of Kiev Lenses</a> the Standard 80/2.8 has a resolution of 50/20. Now, if this were wide open, this isn't bad! The 65mm wide has a resolution of 42/18, which isn't so good at all. But if it were stopped down, that isn't bad. The 250mm Jupiter has a 55/40 which is decent. <p>

After all, the yashinon 80/3.5 is a tessar clone (although i THINK it's a 3-element Triotar clone, rather than a 4-element tessar clone, i'm not sure) which means that it really ought to be somewhat lower than, but comparable to tessar performance. <p>

If the kiev ratings are wide open, that's great. If they're stopped down...well...that's painfull bad. <p>

Just my take on it.<p>

-jon

The big disadvantage that I've found is that hot lights are not always 5600K. Tungsten lights are maybe around 2800k, halogens are around 3200k. The only hot lights taht are close to 5600K are the GE/Kodak "blue" hotlights that are rated somewhere near 5200K, but they last about 3-6hrs and are about 6$/bulb at a local store. <p>

With lights that aren't 5600K, this has clear implications -- either shoot with a filter over your lens or over the light (which makes you lose at least 2 or more stops).<p>

With atleast decent hotlights and a photoflood (balanced at 5200K) you still need a 5200->5600K adapter for chrome (and photofloods really change their colour a LOT) and EVEN then from 5 feet away I still need to shoot at say f5.6 or so.<p>

Strobes will pretty easily get you to f11 or f16, and you can pop them several times quickly to get a good fill. <p>

Also, photofloods are HOT. which means no gels close up, and they tend to really make people irritated. *grin*<p>

That's just my perspective. Yes, they are cheaper, but they're also a big hassle, especially when it comes to the colour. <p>

That's just my opinion.<p>

Jon.

When you use a teleconverter, esp a 2x like a Mutar I or II, does the effective DOF change?

<p>

Is the DOF the same as the old lens (say, if i put a TC on a Planar 85/1.4 to get a 170/2.8) is the DOF equivalent to a 85, or to a 170?

<p>

Thanks.

<p>

-jon