peter gooijer photography

Ilkka, I have in my hand at this moment a Pentax 6x7 77mm Skylightfilter with only a bayonetmount. So it does exist.

I bought it cheap, not knowing that I cannot use it, because the only 77mm lens I own is the (new) 55mm, one of the few lenses that does not have a bayonetmount...

I tried my P6x7 lenses on my Canon Digital Rebel whith a m42 to Eos adapter and the 67-P-adapter. Ofcourse it only uses a small part of the image-circle. In ?P` mode I have to adjust the Canon from -1 to -2 stops. P67 lenses have a lower definition (lines/mm) than 35mm lenses, but the results are usable. Sharpness and contrast are a bit lower compared to my 35mm SMC Takumar lenses.

A problem is that the lenses are big and heavy, specially in combination whith the P-adapter, where the Canon is very small and light. The balance is bad, and I?m afraid for the Canon bayonet...

As said: for a few bucks you can get perfect 35mm Takumar primes.

I do not think soft and dreamy are a euphemism for unsharp. I've got an old Rolleicord II with a Triotar as well. The pictures are certainly not unsharp, technically spoken. They sure are soft, I did not (yet) succeed to get such a sharp and contrasty result as the picture of the old folks Patric Dahlen shows, but if I want that I take another camera. My pictures from the old Cord are sharp, but soft and with low contrast, for some subjects it can be quite nice. When you have the choise (as I have, fortunately) out of differtent Rollei TLR"s, it can be fun to make a walk with the old Rolleicord and a hand-held meter, it gives me a slow and peaceful feeling, in the hasty life of today. If you just want razor-sharp and crisp pictures, buy a Flex with a Planar.

 

Peter Gooijer

Michael, if you hadn't already made your site, you should be forced

by law to do so.

I must apologize: I did not mean to say the meter is unreliable, but the result. A meter like on the Rolleiflex is an average-light meter. For general purpose maybe satisfactory, but difficult to use in not-standard light situations.

Peter

I've got a 2,8E and removed the meter. It is damaged easely and very expensive to repair. It is not very reliable unless you are very experienced, you never know what you are measuring. Get used to a hand held meter: if you want to work very fast and easy, take another camera. With a Rolleiflex you don't shoot pictures, but you are making Photographs: give it the care it deserves! BTW, you don't need the film speed on the camera (it is not coupled), only on the hand-held meter.

But Tito Carlos, how do you get the right position for this lock-up ring? From the back?

I recently bought a Rolleiflex 3,5 Planar in reasonable condition.

The upper lens (Heidosmat) can easily be screwed out with my

fingernails in the two notches. It however can also be screwed

further in then it should, and it will therefore no longer focus

correctly at infinity. Is this normal, or is there something missing

(e.g. an extra ring or washer)? I tested the settings with a loupe,

and it works ok, but it still is possible the lens turns without

knowing. I probably will have it serviced eventually.

Peter

By the way, there is nothing wrong with the E model. I own one and it is a great camera. I removed the meter because it is easely damaged on my hiking trips, and I never use it anyway. I use a hand-held meter, with better results, and the camera is otherwise the same.

If you are in Italy, it would be possible to go to Germany and compare some prices there. Visit Ebay Germany first to see if it is worth while to make the trip. You should be able to find a lot of Rolleiflexes with accessories for that money. What does he ask for the Leica's?

Steve, concerning your quest for smaller apertures, I was wondering if the old idea of a pin-hole camera would work. By covering the lens with a thin black foil with a tiny hole in it, you should be able to get the desired DOF. Ansel Adams did it, Zorkendorfer from Germany still has an accessory for this purpose, but with a skylight filter and a peace of aluminum foil it should work. Ofcourse the hole is not were it should be, but the optical quality with very small apertures isn't optimal anyway. Maybe worth experimenting.

The SMC Takumar 4,5/500, 1000mm and 135-600mm zoom for the 35mmm S

version screw-mount had a removable tube with a bayonet. This was to

handle with the disadvantage of the screwmount for the big lenses.

With this tube removed the lens is ofcourse shorter. Asahi Pentax

sold an adapter to use these lenses on the 6x7. In my 1975 pricelist

the price for the adapter was about $50. The adapters for 6x7 lenses

on 35mm are more known.

Peter.

Although I think the comparison between lenses of different brands is quite useless, I'm curious to know if any of you ever was so fortunate to compare the Pentax 45mm with the Mamiya 43mm for the 7, and/or the Hasselblad X-pan with 45mm. The reason I'm interested in this comparison, is that these are quite different approaches of the same angle of view in 7cm wide film format. The results of each lens should be excellent, but is there (should there be) a noticable difference in the result (the photo)? Ofcourse apart from (or because of??) the different filmsize with the Hasselblad.

If it doesn't work, Tracy, it's possible you've got the same problem I had with my 'flex: there is a mechanism inside that should get the counter started after the rolls 'feel' when the film passes. The thicker combination of paper and film push the inner roll a little bit inside, and a lever should be released. With these mechanical cameras it is very well possible it doesn't work after a while.

You can test it with a 120 rollfilm papercover with a rim of 2 or 3 layers of tape on the place were the film normally starts. This should push the roll far enough inside when you advance the film after you closed the back. Fixing is actually quite easy, I did it myself, but you have to take your camera apart. I don't recommend you to do it with a valuable 2,8F (I bought my old Rolleiflex 3,5 for about $80....) Any good repairshop should be able to do it in less then 2 hours.

Peter

I develop Delta 100 6 min. in HC110 (1+31) from Kodak. Very common, very simple, very reliable (you can keep the bottle for years) and very beautiful negs. With 120 film (and camera) you won't have to worry about sharpness or tonality.

My Rolleiflex 2,8E shutter works fine without a film in the camera.

With a film, however, the shutter sometimes doesn't work. I think it

is because when transporting the film, the lever doesn't move the

needed distance all the time to fully 'load' the shutter (it blocks

after the film has moved one image).

Does anybody know this problem, and what to do about it?

Peter

After shedding some blood sweat and tears making it work, I managed to get my presentation on photo.net working: http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=84410

(or under H: "home brew combination".

The picture quality is bad, due to my little scanning experience. Here you will find some projects with my AP67, one tilt and shift contraption which works from infinity, and the use of the 4,0/55mm on a Speed Graphic 4x5" for panorama purpose. I would suggest to you all to make your own presentation (if I can do it, you can!), so we can finally see some pictures we make with this nice camera. I will add some too.

yes

wrong adress, trie this one:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/browse-presentations?last_letter=H

Look at "Home brew combination" by peter gooijer.

sorry!

I've got 35mm screwmount Pentax, and I love it. I've got Pentax 6x7cm and I love it, never saw sharper images. I've got a Speed Graphic 4x5" and the tonal quality of this negative size is addictive. But I recently bought a secondhand Rolleiflex TLR with 2,8/80mm Planar (1956!!). It was relatively cheep, because the lightmeter was broken ($250). For me after 25 years of photography it is a totally new experience, to work with this gem of a camera. Looking on the groundglas from the top, even while walking, and seeing the picture develop, the total silence of the shutter, the need to stick to simple standard-lens thinking, I am hooked. Trie it, and save some money in the process.

 

peter

Finally I finished the lensboard for my Speed Graphic 4x5" camera with focal plane shutter (visit Graflex.org). I mounted a half macro ring bayonet on this board, so I can use my 67 lenses on 4x5".

My first attempt is a photo of my home town, with the 4.0/55mm. The image circle is about 10cm, so it does not cover 4x5". I enlarged the middle strip to get a panorama photo (visit http://www.photo.net/photo/239801&size=lg). The edges left and right are somewhat manipulated, are blurred due to light fall off and deminished image quality near the edge of the circle. I think the 7 cm of the AP67 is about the maximum quality range of this lens. It is possible (and fun) however to make a picture with a wider angle of view. The print is very sharp, and the lesser edges are not noticed by a casual viewer.

My general answer is: don't try it yourself, let the servicedepartment of your dealer do it. I opened a lot of (cheap) lenses, most of the time something goes wrong. I got some experience however, and I can afford (financially and mentally) to take the risk turning it into a show-model. With the Rolleiflex, which I bought relatively cheap because of the state it was in, I dared to take the risk. The ring with two slots, which holds the front element, turned rather easy. You have to apply force to both slots as much as you can, preferebly by using the special tool with two 'legs' (I don't have it). Use a screwdriver or so with a blade that fits the slot as close as possible. If you slip, you can easely scratch the lens, so don't use to much force! The Tessar has a single front element, in mine the fungus was on the inside, and coold be removed with a cloth. Steve from Australia wrote me in his R'flex it was on the rear element, so he had to wipe it off through the opened shutter. Very tricky! If it fails, weep and think about the meaning of life, if it succeeds, you will feel as proud as I did.

I've bought a batterded 1949 Rolleiflex, and after fixing the film

transport, and removing the fungus from the front lens element, I am

thinking about making it look better. Allmost all the black paint is

worn. What is your opinion: should I repaint it, or should I respect

it's age, and let the aluminum apear and corrode. The black paint has

some kind of structure, I don't know where to get it. I also can

polish the aluminum. BTW I fixed the film transport by opening the

right hand side, there is an excentrical (English?) washer with two

tiny holes around a screw, and by turning it (took a lot of trying),

now it starts counting again.

peter

I bought the Speed Graphic, and after cleaning and a little repair, I

made a lensboard for a Vivitar VHE 100mm enlarging lens, which was

easy, to test the shutter. The first results are very promising, it

produces evenly exposed images, I'm not sure the focussing is

precise, but it isn't far off. To be continued.

Peter

The switch is supposed to return to it's middle position, it doesn't

stay in on or off position. You just push it to on and it jumps back.

If the meter doesn't work (the needle is visible under the viewframe,

it switches off automatically after a few seconds!) you should check

the battery (little knob on the back, red light lits on top) and

check if the powerconnections between prism and body are clean. If it

still doesn't work , there is something wrong. See earlier threads,

were you can see fixing it at Pentax isn't always expensive.