doug_brightwell1

This isn't the answer to your question, but FWIW I'm in the same

situation with a Hi-Tech brand dual-slot filter holder. Holds two

4x4 filters and terminates in a threaded ring that will take a

105mm polarizer (or, of course, any other filter that size). With the

wide angle adapter ring that screws into the front of the 40mm

and allows the entire Hi-Tech assembly to sit closer to the lens, I

got vignetting. The B+W 105mm polarizer I have is rather thick.

I too wondered about stepping up to a 122mm polarizer, but I

think they had to be special ordered from the factory and it took

forever. I chickened out from buying a filer that cost more than

some of the lenses for my Canon 35mm. :-) Plus I worried about

putting so much resin and glass so far out in front of my lens that

could conceivably catch light from both front and back surfaces.

I've sometimes noticed significant flare from my Contax 95mm

thin polarizer when I've used it alone on the 40mm (without the

Hi-Tech rig, of course), and when I can't keep light off the filter.

In my case, the need wasn't compelling enough to pursue

further, and as I recall, I couldn't find anyone who could

guarantee that the 122mm polarizer would absolutely not

vignette.

But, I would be interested in knowing the answer to your

question about the Lee holder.

Doug

"take a flashlight and aim it down

one end of your lens while looking down the other - you'll be

amazed at the

amount of dirt, paint chips, air bubbles, etc. that happily live in

your lenses

that you're probably unaware of"

I did that to my lenses and it is a scary sight!

As someone who works in Silicon Valley and someone who

received a defective 180/2.8 too, I have to agree with Vijay.

I don�t have an axe to grind, and I�m no engineer, but I do have

experience with human nature and marketing. I take it as

axiomatic that companies tout, or at least publish, information

that makes them look better than the competition, and withhold

information that doesn�t.

In general consumers in the photographic industry don�t

demand the kind of accountability that customers do in the

computer/software industry. And they don�t have the kind of clout

it takes.

Photography lacks a vigorous press, and that�s a keystone to a

strong consumer advocacy. If you�re a CIO and your job and your

company�s fortunes depend upon making the right hardware or

software decision, you demand, and can get, higher quality

information than is available to photographers.

Forget CIOs. As a personal computer user, I can get more

detailed critical product analysis about my $600 copy of

PhotoShop than I can my $20,000 worth of Rollei equipment.

Anyway, I�ve been surprised by what seems to be an instinct to

reject Vijay�s point of view. OK, perhaps as an engineer, he�s

zeroing in on a level of detail that�s hard for some to relate to. But

why on earth would I fault the basic thrust of his argument?

If he got his way, would I gain or lose as a photo consumer? If

photo manufacturers were held to higher standards, do I gain or

lose?

My two cents.

Cheers...

Doug

Sure it's expensive... but at least you can take comfort in the fact

that it's also poorly designed! :-)

It's _round_ while the camera format is square.Even my cheaper

Japanese 35mm camera has lens shades that are cut based on

the realization that the film format is a rectangle, not a circle.

And yes, I own a round 180mm shade and occasionally use it on

my 90mm... and constantly wonder what those Rollei guys could

possibly have been thinking.

"...all deep colors except for blue should shift a bit to the warm side..."

When I shot a few rolls of Provia, I was stunned at how blue the film turned out to be in midday sunlight (processed normal and viewed on a color correct light box). The guy at the camera store told me that Provia tends toward a cool cast. I ended up switching to another film. Wonder if it could have been the lab's processing. Does anyone else notice a bias toward blue?

Have you considered calling Marflex and chatting with Martin Arndt? You wouldn't have to get into the issue of where you purchased your camera. Just ask him if Marflex sees a greater percentage of problems with those lenses due to the wiring approach, and that you're concerned and you're trying to decide if the wiring issue should affect your lens choice.

He's a nice man and has been very helpful to many of us. I suspect he'd enjoy conversing with someone who is knowledgeable in this area.

If you decide to call him, let us know what he says.

-Doug

Vijay...

I ccn't comment on long term reliability, but my experience with my 180mm/2.8 so far:

- the first one I received from a local camera store had an aperture problem. The aperture would stick and wouldn't close down past about f8.

- I too noticed the exposed wires and wondered is that wasn't a funky design, but figured that's too obvious. If the question occured to me, and I'm not an engineer, I figured that the engineers at Rollei/Schneider had already addressed it.

- My replacement lens works just fine. I have to say it appears extremely sharp to me. I like to focal length for portraits, and it's a nice compliment to my 90mm macro. Takes extenders, so with a 1.4 Longar, you get about a 250mm-ish/4.0.

FWIW,

Doug

I agree. This is a well-worn topic. But I will also put in my 2-cents.

Marflex's reputation for good service was the one thing that

allowed me to feel comfortable going with Rollei instead of the

much better supported Hasselblad. With all the bad things I had

heard about Rollei USA's support and marketing practices, I

knew that I'd at least get top-knotch service from Marflex. So far,

that's proven to be true.

I've used Fuji Reala 120 at 30-secs with good results. If you're in

the USA, you have to order it from B&H Photo in NY. Or, it's

available from any pro shop in Canada.

Does the camera have metering elements layered into the

coating on the mirror? If so, those need a circular polarizer even

if there is no auto focus. At least they do on my camera. Don't

know the Bronica.

I believe you can get them from B&H Photo in New York. Check

out the B&W Schneider brand, and also Contax also makes a

much thinner/lighter version for their 35mm lens on their 645

camera. The B&W filter is thicker and heavier. Probably close to

$300 USD, I'm guessing.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/

Glad to see this thread. I need some help thinking this through:

I shoot landscapes with a Rollei and a Schneider 40mm super

angulon. My way of seeing involves a lot of depth foreground to

background. From say 5-6 feet to infinity. Yes, I'd ideally be using

my view camera with tilts, but for various well considered

reasons I need to stick with an SLR 6x6 camera.

I am continually amazed at how little depth of field you get with a

40mm lens. I knew it wasn't going to be like a wide angle on a

35mm, but it's just amazing how little you get at f8 and f11. I've

been typically stopping down to f16, and avoiding the max f22

stop. But I need more depth of field.

Unlike the Super Angulon, the Zeiss 40mm Distagon stops

down to f32.

So, here's the questions:

- Is avoiding the max f22 f-stop on the super angulon truly

adviseable if I'm interested in sharp 20x20 prints? Could I go for

the greater depth of field at f22 and never notice the additional

loss of resolution due to diffraction?

- If diffraction is a legitimate concern, would I get less diffraction

with the Zeiss 40mm at f22 -- because f22 is not the max stop

(f32 is)? Or, is the amount of difraction going to be the same

between both lenses at f22?

- Could I use the Zeiss at f32, gain significantly more depth of

field without really seeing any resolution loss due to increased

diffraction?

- Does lens design/forumula affect how much depth of field a

lens provides, and how much of a problem diffraction is? Or is a

Super Angulon formula going to be the same as a Distagon

formula?

Thanks for your thoughts...

Merely a stab in the dark...

Does the application place a limit on the number of pixels in

either length or width of the image files?

I've had problems with another QTVR authoring software

because it only accepted PICT files of 4K pixels or less in the

width. Anything about 4K pixels caused an error message.

I�m really interested in this issue of focus and depth of field. I

shoot landscapes with a Rollei with a 40mm Super Angulon,

among other lenses. My subject matter tends to have a great

amount of depth between foreground and infinity. In an ideal

world, I would use a camera with tilt movements, but for various

reasons a view camera (which I own) is not usable in most of my

shooting situations, and I just didn�t want to go the Fuji 680

route.

I recall from photo classes in my college days that one was

supposed to focus about 1/3 the way into a scene... that depth of

field was greater behind the plane of focus than in front of it. Boy,

was I in for a shock when I shot that way with the 40mm! The

foreground was very sharp, but the background on towards

infinity was soft. Occasionally I see comments on the web that

with a 40mm lens depth of field is so great that focus isn�t

critical. In my experience, it just ain�t so. In fact, the depth of field

at around f8 is minimal.

I read the acrobat file referenced in a previous post, and have a

question. The file is actually a bit mapped scan of the article and

is a little hard for me to read. I believe that Englander is

suggesting that if infinity is involved in the shot, the optimal point

of focus is �1/3 the distance _beyond_ the infinity focus point.�

I�m guessing that his choice of terms is based on bellows

extension, since 1/3 beyond infinity doesn�t otherwise make any

sense. So, the question is, is he essentially saying to focus 2/3

of the way into the scene for optimal depth of field?

Initially my goal was to be able to make a 20x20 print from a full

frame 6x6 color negative. If I�m reading Englander right, I�m

totally hosed since the Super Angulon simply doesn�t stop down

far enough. I typically shoot at f16, thinking that I should avoid the

smallest f22 aperture to avoid the diffraction effect.

The Zeiss Distagon verson of the 40mm stops down to f32. I

wonder if that extra f-stop would make a significant difference in

extra depth of field before encountering defraction problems. Or

would the degradation due to diffraction be the same on both

lenses at any given f-stop?

Go to an art supply store and buy a very soft, high quality

watercolor brush often called a "mop". Gently use the mop with

baby shampoo and water to clean the screen. Gently blow dry

with air, but not a heavy burst of air. Do not clean a screen like

you would a lens. The surface of most high brightness screens

have microscopic prisms or fresnel rings all over that can be

damaged by rubbing with any kind of cloth. Doesn't matter which

kind of cloth.

The main criteria was a color negative film that�s available in 4x5

single sheet readyloads that has a long exposure range and can

handle high contrast subjects. Portra 160vc, which I normally

shoot in standard film holders, is not yet available in single

sheet readyloads. I thought since NPS is used a lot for

weddings, and weddings are typically shot in MF, that someone

on this forum might have some experience with longer

exposures.

I sometimes shoot landscapes right at sunset and dusk, and

have needed exposures of 4, 15, even 30 seconds particularly

with a polarizing filter cutting down the light.

Fuji says that exposures over 2 seconds are not recommended.

How does NPS handle reciprocity at longer exposures? What

effects would I notice that make it "not recommended?" Is it

simply a matter of a color shift that's easily corrected in

PhotoShop?

Any idea what the reciprocity factor would be at those longer

exposure times?

Fuji USA stopped distributing it a while back. The B&H imported

version is still available. I believe 120 & 220 is still available in

Canada and other countries. I assume Fuji Japan has stopped

manufacturing it and B&H and Fuji distributors in other countries

are selling remaining stock. Anybody know for sure?

On a side note... someone on the Rollei list said that the only lab

in the world who can still process 120 Kodachrome (I believe in

Laussane, Switzerland) is making it's last 120 run this fall. After

that, 120 Kodachrome owners are outta luck.

What do you mean by "mass coupling"? Can you explain that a little more?

Thanks...

Kevin...

I am curious about the rubber bands you mentioned. Can you

describe how you use them and why?

Thanks...

David...

I was interested in your DHL comment.

Do you have to go to a DHL office, or will DHL come to your

location to pick it up, and can you pack the box in front of the

driver? Is the idea that the box is in DHL's control the entire time,

or could it get x-rayed by customs officials without DHL knowing?

Would Fed Ex work the same way, or only DHL?

Anyone know if Fed Ex x-rays inside the USA?

Thanks,

Doug

Kornelius... I never shot a frame with the flare in it, unfortunately.

Would have been a good idea for troubleshooting purposes.

Bill... I was hoping a reflection off the interior of the camera body

wasn't the reason, but what you say makes sense..

Thanks for the comments...

I'm curious about a lens flare I recently experienced, and would

appreciate any thoughts.

I was shooting a building exterior at late dusk, almost full

nighttime. There was a light pole illuminating a sidewalk... one of

those common, totally diffuse plastic spheres that are about the

size of a beach ball. Definitely not a point source light.

6008i. 40mm Super Angulon. No filter on the lens.

If I framed the image so that the light was well inside the frame,

no flare. If I framed the image to keep the light well outside the

frame, again no flare. But if I framed the image so that the light

was just barely out of frame, I got noticeable flare against the

almost black background.

What's going on? Why would I see flare in the viewing screen

only when the light is just barely out of frame, but not when it's

well inside or outside the frame? Do lenses just flare more

noticeably at certain angles relative to light sources?

Or, is it possible that the lamp was actually in the shot to a very

small degree, but since the viewing screen does not show a full

100%, perhaps I wasn't seeing it. If so, what would that mean?

Is it possible to get flare purely from the way a hotspot is

projected onto the viewing screen, without it showing up on the

film?

Thanks,

Doug