erlend sæteren

You got lot of good answers here. I too use the Sinar-copal behind the lens shutter. To reach all the controls from behind the camera is VERY NICE. It allows you to dial the f stop and view full open or with the cable pressed- stopped down. Saves some seconds

of fumbling. The shutter inside lens is what you need to get fast speeds like 1/125 s on copal 3 and I think it is 1/400 on copal 1.

 

Almost all Sinars are nice in their own way. The P2 and P are large- studiolike. The F and f 2 and Norma a bit lighter. The C is a mix of P and F. The P2, P and C are the fastet to focus with tilt, because it swings around axis closer to the edges than the center of the screen. They are studiokings. The Norma is interesting. Top of the line presicioncamera 50 years ago, and still very good. It is light- almost as an F.

I have a P and a P2 with extrastandards, and holders for 4x5,5x7 and 8x10 inch. If I want to go light I can go with only two light holders(might be F frontcarriers). Actually you can by whatever Sinar you want, and combine it later with Sinarparts or another Sinar. The only reason for me to buy a non-Sinar is that there are more compact things around for hiking.

I disagree with John Galuszka. Because I live in Norway, a country so heavy digitized that film has almost died. Film is

slowly recovering, and will continue recovering very slowly. Digital will grow beyond 200megapixels, but I believe that

oneshot 4x5 inch never will be made for sale at affordable prices. You can put billons of megapixels in a 55x70mm

digitalback, but the size of a 55x70mm back will never be larger than 55x70mm, so for large format film will rule.

Digital will never be film, and can not compete with what you get with film in the darkroom. digital is something else.

Digital is only better when there are reasons to work with it on a computer.

Hi Bob. One reason the digital lens I tested this winter did fail I believe was the diaphragm. I think it was mounted in a

Sinar DB. Do you know if some digitallenses are available with better rounded diaphragms with more blades?

Erie. I am sorry I spelled your name wrong.I should use glasses. I use Sinar P too. With different formats.I have earlier

used the Dicomed scanning back. More frequently I use smaller cameras like Mamiya 7 and Mamiya ZD, and I do a lot of

LF scanning, rawconverting and retouching for the finest foodphotographer in Norway. When she started with digital( Leaf

Aptus 75) this year, we worked hard with trying and testing different equipment and rawconverters . The goal was producing

images that was equally delicious as the scanned Velvia 100 F images. We made it reasonably close, but it was a lot of

work. The Sinar P3 with a Sinarback and program and a digitallens (Rodenstock or Schneider) was rejected because we

wasn�t close. I tend to blame this partially on the lens and partially on our skills with Sinar rawcoverter but mainly on the

Sinar rawconverter program.

Dg, your Apo- Sironar S is much similar to the Symmar-S that works fine for Eric. One more nice thing about your lenses is

that your Arca Swiss can be upgraded to large format, and those lenses are super performers on 4x5 inch.

Eric. Too high contrast and saturation- is that only a softwareproblem(and softwareuserproblem), or is it a problem with

some Digital-lenses?

My conclution is: I would love to try schneider 80 XL ........schneider 58 XL ........rodenstock apo sironar S 150

........rodenstock apo ronar 240 on Leaf Aptus 75, and I am going to try my Rodenstock Macro Sironar 210 and my Nikkor

SW 120 this year. And to you DG- those lenses deserves to be tried- and if you could try them side by side with some

Digitars- that would be interesting. Those xl- lenses have a constuction that is not ideal for digital backs, because the light

comes in a too wide angle. So theoretically the Apo-Ronar should be most fit, followed by the apo-sironar s. For wideangle

a retrofocus constuction is better , and I too would choose the digital-optimized lenses Bob mentions or the Mamiya

28mm. Bob is actually right about warm speeking of all the Digitallenses, but I think he is too negative about classic

lenses.

An Apo Sironar Digital might outperform A Mamiya rz 140 macro, but it is not able to project pictures that is equally fine

foodpictures or better. Foodpictures is meant to make people hungry. It is less important how sharp the entrecote is, than

how deliciuos it looks. Good Mf-optics does not have any problems with resolution on my computerscreen or on the final

print. My point is that to make the pictures you want, you might perform worse with the best lenses than you do with the lenses that is

best fit for your task. But there are situations where the best resolution comes in handy too, but in those situations the digitallenses will be

severly outperformed by larger lenses on large format film.

Hi Bob . You said that the apo sironar s 150 will not perform as well as the digital lenses(on 36x48mm and similar type

backs I guess) . That surprises me. I am aware of that the digitars are supposed to have higher resolution, but I am not

sure that ultrahigh resolution versus high resolution actually means better performance in the meaning projecting better

images. I have not tried all these lenses, so I must rely on you and other debattants. I have tested the Mamiya rz 140

macro on Lesf Aptus 75, and this lens is for food photography on f stop 11 to 22 much nicer than a digitar we tried once.

The Digitar looks to contrasty, and the colors were to saturated, and the diaphragm (only 5 blades if I remember

correct)did show very edgy in the highlights(it was in with the Sinar program, it might do better with Lightroom). The RZ

140 gave very nice, smooth and sharp images. Stopping down beyond 22 (22,5) was bad because of diffraction. I am

not sure about the lenses dg asked about, but are they significantly less sharp than the Mamiya RZ 140 macro? I have

heard they are good- so it surprises me. I think you can get higher resolution with the Digitars, but not better pictures.

My favorite digital lenses today are Mamiya rz 140 macro, Mamiya 120macro for 645, and Mamiya 28mm for 645 Af. I

think all these are nicer (not sharper)than the Digitar I tried, and plenty sharp enough.

I think that the best wideangle for the Leaf aptus 75 is the Mamiya 28mm for Mamiya 645 AFD. I have used it . It impressed me! If you rent this Lens and camera you might be able to click the back directly on wthout adapter(not sure). The Mamiya 28 is well corrected for everything optically, and does not need additional softwarejob. There are some fine Rodenstock and Schneiders for small viewcameras too, but � they to short to be focusable on your 4x5? And maybe there is a Rollei or Leaf afi or Sinar HY6 solution?

If you can not focus to infinity, is it possible to mount one standard between the two rail holders?

Disconnect the cameraparts from the rail. Push the rail forward trough the tripodmounted bracket untill it is equally long on

each side. Then mount the back standard behind the bracket and the front standard in front of it and connect them with the

bellows.

Congratulation. This is one of the finest 210 lenses ever made for 8x10" (and 4x5). Another thing is that it appears to have

macroquality in the closeups to. What it is worth - close to priceless.

Modifying fuji gx lenses for 4x5 could be fun. Maybe it is possible to use a device ment for trigging the fujishutter on a

digitalback like leaf and phase one, and then use the lens on a lf-camera. Another solution. Mount the lens on a Sinarboard,

use a sinar-copal behind the lens shutter. Why do this? The 180 3.2 might be nice on 4x5.It is a superfast, multicoated

modern lens .

your 60 is close to the 135mm angle of view, so I recommend it. The 80 looks almost like a 180mm and the 120 almost

a 270mm. You can go for these focallenghts . I suggest two lenses 135mm and 210mm because you save some money

and weight, and these relatively small lenses are very ok for your Toyo Field. I am not sure you will miss something.

You get different answers about 56x56m vs 4x5" angle of view from us, because square and nonsquareformats is

difficult to compare. 135 is usually a smaller and less expencive lens than the 120, because 120lenses are usually

wideangles(usually buildt for 5x7") and the 135ﾴs are usually normals, often plasmats.Some 120ﾴs are so large that they

can be diffucult to mount on a foldingcamera. The 135 or the 150 might be possible to fold inside your camera for

transport. Myself I would choose 135 for environmental portraits and groups, and 210 for single portraits. An alternative

to the 210 is a 270, or both 180 and 270. A 240 is ok if get a small, slow one. And there is a fuji 250(6,3?). I think that

the majority of 240 5.6 lenses(mounted in Copal nr 3 shutters) are to bulky for your camera. What is nice with 210 is the

combination of high speed(5.6) and small shutter(Copal no. 1).

For portrait I prefer Sinar with DB mounted lenses and a Sinar-Copal shutter. It gives you automatic diaphragm, you can

reach and read all controls from behind the camera. For me that saves fumblingtime, and is very important for portraits.

Sinar is super for all studio work and still life. I also guess that Sinar is the least expensive system to build complete,

because it is made in large numbers.

I also use Sinar for landscape, but if I had a folding camera I rather would prefer to carry it outdoors. In fact my Mamiya 7

gets more outdoor-use.

Sorry I didn't read it was a Plaubel

Maybe for a no-shutter barrellens. I can go home and measure my Rodenstock Apo-Ronar 360 f 9. If it is a Sinar-board you can swap it with me and get a Copal zero--drilled Sinar-board

It looks like these pictures were shot with the Polaroid 55 positive/negative film. The negative is rinsed and taken care off, and the negative has been scanned, or printed and scanned the print.

One problem with digitalbacks on largeformatcameras for architecture, is that large cameras usually are buildt for larger lenses and film. A wide angle for your digitalback might be 28 or 35 mm. Few LFcameras are comfortable with focusing that short lenses even with recessed board and wideangle bellows. The new digitaloriented generation, like Sinar P3, are buildt for the smaller ccd`s. For very short wideangles a shiftonlycamera (no swing and tilt) is easier to use. You dont risk getting the focalplane slightly wrong .

For Outdoors: Linhof Technica

In the Studio: Sinar P2(earlier: P,and first: Norma)

Woodcameras: Listen to the other people here.

 

(Chinese cameras: Chamonix)

5d gives nicer pictures than the old Eos 1 ds. Full frame is nice with the 24 tilt/shift(or

24 1:2.8 in low budget), so because of that I recommend it for real estate. If you add

the 45 tse you are very arcitecturecapable, or for budgetreasons the 50 1:1.8 The 24-

105 has lots of distorsion.

 

The ds has more battery, and are better built to resist the weather and are more sturdy

mechanical, but I would not go older than mark2.

Hey Philippe. I have not used the G Claron myself, but I guess it is good. I guess it

will perform well both for macro and more distance. 270 mm is 540 mm bellows in 1:1.

About macro, Jose Angel said the right things, but if you are going to take shots at

less magnification too, such as 1:2, the 210 covers better. From 1:4 too infinity you

won`t need macro, and the Macro-Sironar 210 will get covering problems. By the way ,

I Have used the Macro-Sironar 210 a lot on 4x5" with magnifications usually between

1:20 and 1,2:1. It is very good!

A lot of them. The Rodenstock Macro-Sironar 210mm 5,6 is one. The lens is

reversible. How you arrange the cells optimizes it for larger or smaller than 1:1. To go

larger you need more bellows than 42 cm. If you choose a shorter lens you need less

bellows .1:1 is usually twice the focal lenght. I guess that you need around 30 cm

bellows to cover 8x10" with a macro lens. Macrolenses are usually a bit more narrow

than most lenses. So if you choose a 120mm, you will magnify quite a lot to fill 8x10".

You might consider an enlarger-lens.