lloyd_chambers

I used the original 503CWD (see <em><a href="http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/Hasselblad503CWD/index.html">An Hour with the Hasselblad

503CWD</a></em> review).

I'm interested if anyone has compared results with the original CFV back, which I liked a lot.

<p>

Also it seems that Hasselblad has a savings promotion with the 40mm CFE, a stunning lens when I used it on the original.

<p>

Also, does anyone know if the IR filter can be removed? (Maybe it's bonded to the sensor). It would make a wonderful <a

href="http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/blog.html#Infrared">infrared</a> camera.<div></div>

Does anyone know where/how I could obtain the 250 SuperAchromat? I want one for both

color and infrared work to be used on Canon bodies (color and infrared).

 

It is no longer made, so this means finding someone who is willing to sell one.

 

ALSO, the 250 is -not- a T* lens, making it suitable for infrared work. The 350

SuperAchromat is apparently a T* lens, which will attenuate infrared.

Well, I'm hoping those 4 screws on the Leica are the same 4 screws in the same position as

on the Schneider, which also uses screws--

 

Ronald are you certain the screws are not compatible?

 

Thanks.

I want to fit the Leica 28mm/f2.8 PC Super Angulon to my Nikon D2X. To do so, I'm

hoping to unscrew the lens mount from the lens,then screw on the Nikon lens mount.

This is how Schneider ships their version of the PC Super Angulon.

I know Schneider makes the PC Super Angulon with a variety of lens mounts:

<p>

<a href="http://www.schneideroptics.com/photography/pc-super-angulon/" >http://

www.schneideroptics.com/photography/pc-super-angulon/</a>

<p>

I own the Leica R 28mm/f2.8 PC Super Angulon. I understand the optics of this lens are

made by Schneider, which offers a variety of lens mounts for the Schneider version of the

lens. If I purchase a Schneider lens mount intended for the Schneider PC Super Angulon,

is it possible to detach the Leica lens mount on the *Leica* PC Super Angulon and attach

the Schneider mount?

Someone in the SF bay area must have one, but no one has responded yet...

I tested the Olympus 35mm/f2.8 PC shift lens on the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II 16.7 MP

digital. It's outstanding, with better performance than the Nikon 35mm/f2.8 PC.

 

So I'm eaqer to take a look at the 24mm...

And if for some reason email doesn't work, try phone at 483-8010 (area code 650)

If you are in the San Francisco bay area and have the Olympus 24mm

shift lens, I'd like to test it on my EOS 1Ds Mark II (a simple

adapter ring does the trick--I use one already on the Olympus 35mm

shift lens).

 

Depending on the results, I may want to buy it from you. :)

 

contact me at olympus@llc4.com

Thanks everyone, this has been very helpful. I found my local dealer has an APO Tele Arton in stock and I'm going to take a look, hopefully some test shots. If not, sounds like the Fujinon C series is a good bet.

Thanks for the feedback everyone. Nikon does not claim this lens is APO, just

that it uses ED glass. The effect I observed is on the computer screen, so the

printer is not in the loop.

 

The Tango drum scanner certainly does *not* introduce effects of this kind.

However, I checked the original chrome and observed the red fringing on one

side and blue on the other, so it is in the orginal chrome and therefore a

function of the lens. It does require a 20X loupe to see this, so perhaps I'm

being too picky, but then again why shoot 4 X 5 if not to get all the potential

resolution of the film! I need that resolution for the large prints, and I'm

certainly paying for it in the time and labor to take the orginal, and the money

to have it scanned at 300MB.

I recently began printing some 4 X 5's I'd shot recently. One of

these was a highly detailed image shot using the Nikkor 360/f8 T ED

tele at f16 or f22 (I don't remember for sure). The orginal chrome

was drum-scanned on a Tango drum scanner.

 

I noted red fringes at high contrast edges over much of the image,

particularly towards the edges. These fringes were somewhere between

1-2 pixels wide (in a 300MB 8 bit scan). Additionally, sharpness

seemed to fall off substantially towards the edges as well. I

attributed the red fringing and sharpness fall-off to chromatic

aberration.

 

As I tend not to print any smaller than 20 X 24 (32 X 40 being my

preferred size), any sharpness loss due to chromatic abberation is a

big concern.

 

So I have a few questions:

1. Are these effects likely the result of chromatic aberration?

2. Has anyone had any experience with competing designs such as the

Schneider 400mm APO Tele Xenar?

 

As a side note, this lens is back from Nikon's optical bench to

correct a misalignment and bad shutter, so I have reason to believe

it is performing fully according to spec.

 

Thanks.

Neil,

 

<p>

 

If depth of field is an issue, you have to stick with 35mm or the

equivalent or you must have tilts or swings.

 

<p>

 

Have you tried the panoramic adapter for the Mamiya? It uses 35mm

film with a double-wide exposure. You could use the 7 II's 43mm and

50mm lenses and those should provide quite reasonable depth of field--

you can't get more without going to 35mm or using tilts/swings.

 

<p>

 

Before you conclude that the detail is not adequate, I recommend

thinking about a few things:

1. Get a first-rate drum scan and then get a Lightjet print made

from the scan by somebody who knows what they are doing. You can get

a heck of a lot out of 35mm. I have seen 4 X 6 feet prints made from

35mm and they look stunning.

 

<p>

 

2. I think for your described usage, there are few better choices

than the Mamiya 7 II--it can shoot 120/220 and 35mm film (in double-

wide). Skip the larger format, and instead get a small lightweight

carbon fiber tripod (eg Gitzo 1128) and develop perfect technique

with it. Perfect technique (rock steady, appropriate focus point) on

35mm film, especially double wide can produce excellent results.

 

<p>

 

Lloyd

See these sites. They're not forums, but they have useful info:

http://westcoastimaging.com/

http://www.charlescramer.com/

You really ought to forget about conventional enlarging and switch to

digital printing based on a Tango drum scan. Contact West Coast

Imaging, Calypso Imaging (both in California) or similar outfit and

compare. You won't go back--and you won't have to worry about silly

issues like whether the original was flat in the enlarger, or focused

properly.

Also, I want to understand the merits of the lenses without worrying

about the price (I can form my own opinions in that regard). Thanks.

I'm looking for a 240mm lens for my 4 X 5. I want something with a filter size of no more than 77 (67 ideal). Size and weight are a consideration, but optical quality is more important. I also want a modern lens that can operate towards the sun with minimal flare and preferably no ghosting.

 

<p>

 

I'm aware of two candidates:

240/f9 Fujinon (small and light)

240/f5.6 Schneider APO Symmar (big and heavy)

 

<p>

 

Can anyone comment on the relative merits of these two lenses and/or suggest other candidates?

Thanks everyone for your input.

 

<p>

 

I purchased a pair of 2 diopter reading glasses ($10, cheap to try)

which seems to help me focus more easily close up. I will try those

and see how they work.

In using my 4 X 5, I find I have trouble accurately focusing. At age 36, I have slight prebyopia and I find I have to move my head away from the ground glass more than I'd like to be able to see it clearly. But when I do that, it's hard to see the fine detail, and the darkcloth sags.

 

<p>

 

I assume some kind of reading glasses are in order, but which are best? I recall hearing something about a jeweler's eyeglass and of course there are also plain reading glasses. Do either of these improve the situation significantly?

I use the Cokin P holder with Singh-Ray graduated neutral density

filters. I have the 2 hard, 2 soft, 3 hard, 3 soft and 5 soft. I

use them extensively on 35mm and somewhat less on 4 X 5, but always

with the same holder. The trick is to cut and file off the outer two

slots so that wide lenses can use the P holder.

 

<p>

 

The Singh-Ray filters are not completely neutral. I've measured them

with a Gossen Color Pro IIIf meter and also shot test chromes. They

all have some degree of magenta shift. The shift is more pronounced

on Velvia, which seems to have its own magenta issues when

underexposed, and less pronounced on Astia.

 

<p>

 

Another *very* knowledgable photographer I've talked to has told me

that the Singh-Ray filters are about as neutral as you can find,

though I cannot state that from personal experience.

I have an Epson Expression 1600 firewire model. It does a good job

on 4 X 5, but with some issues:

 

<p>

 

1. Film flatness is a problem--not a big one, but significant.

However, I think in theory that it would be possible to wet mount the

4 X 5 to the glass with KAMI and then manually focus the scanner. I

haven't tried this.

2. Optical resolution is low relative to specs; I couldn't see any

improvement after 1200 DPI, even on chromes with superior detail.

3. color accuracy is quite good

4. don't count on getting good results on chromes with large areas of

deep shadows. You will get noise--reasonable for the price of the

scanner, but a big annoyance if the area is of any size.

I have a Nikon F100 with an extensive set of lenses, as well as a Mamiya 7 II with 43, 80 and 150mm lenses (I also have a 4 X 5 and 617)

 

The Mamiya lenses are absolutely outstanding (perhaps the best available in medium format) and I think they are as sharp as my 35mm lenses with extremely high contrast too. You will not be disappointed.

 

My major gripe with the 7 II is that because it is not a TLR, it is very difficult to use graduated neutral density filters, which I use heavily with my 35mm equipment. This makes high contrast sunrise/sunset shots next to impossible with it.

 

One other important point: as a rangefinder, it is quite possible to shoot at much lower shutter speeds than with 35mm, since there is no mirror slap.

 

Size/weight are astonishingly low for 6 X 7, and in fact better than some pro SLRs, like the Nikon F5 or D1.

I can't claim to have lots of large format experience, having shot

only a few hundred sheets of 4 X 5, but I haven't seen any noticeable

issue with lens flare in any shots I've taken.

 

<p>

 

It sure would be nice if all the compendium shade folks would post a

with and without picture to back up their claims.

Glenn,

 

<p>

 

I used my Gitzo 1228 for 4 X 5 and I'd say it's a little light, but

it will work OK. The 1325 is heavier and probably quite sufficient.

 

<p>

 

However, I now also own a Gitzo 1548 which I really like a lot; I use

it even for 35mm. I don't use the 1228 much anymore. Basically, if

I'm not walking more than a few miles (which is 90% of the time), I

take the 1548, otherwise the 1228. The 1548 is monstrously strong

and rigid, and a real joy to work with. I'd go with the 1548 if I

were you--it will handle anything you can throw at it.

 

<p>

 

Lloyd

I use a 67 to 67!

 

<p>

 

Hoya makes a very thin 67mm filter that I popped the glass out of.

Then I mount another filter on that. Still plenty of coverage for

4X5, plus you can always remove all the filters if it's an issue.

I've also used 67 to 77 and those work fine too.

 

<p>

 

The key is to use a Hoya filter; I checked as many brands as I could,

and they all are much thicker.