stefan_geschke

I am not sure the lens actually opens up to 5.6.

It could be that the shutter does, but that the same amount of light passes through the lens as at f/6.8.

 

Moreover, you say the exposure is 2 stops lower when shooting at f/8. Is this compared to wide open at the

same shutter speed? Or is this compared to smaller apertures? What is true is that large leaf shutters

are less efficient at "large" apertures such as f/8 because it takes a long time to open the leaf and to shut them again.

At smaller apertures the leafs don't have to open as far to clear the aperture. So, at large apertures and fast shutter

speeds, a leaf shutter tends to underexpose. How much I can't say, but as mentioned before this depends on the

shutter speed and on the aperture. All this is assume that lens and shutter are working correctly.

<p>I tried using quickloads with a Polaroid holder and had severe film flatness issues. Apparently the film curled up on the sides. <br>

I did not have sharpness problems but rather distortion problems (bent straight lines towards the edge of frame) with wide angle lenses. The problem did not occur with the quickload holder.</p>

<p>I believe the APO-Germinar is very similar to an APO-Ronar and APO-Artar, all dialyte types with four elements in for groups. Older ones are usually uncoated, newer ones single coated, which is ok because of the simple optical formula. The APO-Germinars are Repro lenses that are supposed to be very sharp and contrasty for general photography as well. I once had a 300mm APO-Ronar in Copal 1 and was very pleased with the lens. I only sold it because I found 300mm a bit long for my taste and on my 4x5 camera (bellows extension).<br>

Image circle is less than the 300mm Plasmats. The APO-Ronar covers 264mm, the Germinar should be similar. Ok on 5x7, excellent on 4x5, not enough on 8x10, except for closeups. However, the lens might illuminate 8x10 at infinity, with sharpness problems in the corners.</p>

<p>Unfortunately I cannot access any sample images right now. But my personal bokeh king is AI-Nikkor 85 f/1.8. This was the predecessor of the well known 85 f/2. It has 52mm filter diameter in constrast to the 62mm of the f/1.8 AF-version. My lens shows a lot of wear, but the mechanics and glass are still top notch. Nice solid smooth Nikon pre-AF manual focussing, creamy dreamy bokeh wide open, sharp when stopped down. I paid next to nothing for it. Pretty hefty and bulky for its 52mm filter diameter.<br>

Check out reviews of this lens (Rorslett, I think).</p>

<p>Well. It depends what you want. The 135 Sironar S (one of my favorite lenses) is small, light, sharp and does pretty well at larger magnifications. The only aspect where the Superangulon is better is image circle. Have yout thought about 110mm SSXL? That should be a lot sharper than the SA. (Way more expensive though, at least on the used market, I would guess.)</p>

<p>I don't think you should replace your camera with a new one because the "lack back tilt and swing would make it harder to understand all the movements". In principle, every relation between lens an film can be achieved using front movements only.<br>

I guess that the lack of back movements actually makes it simpler to use the camera because you have less to think about. Personally I use only front movements most of the time (rise is most important to me for photographing high objects like trees and buildings, then fall combined with tilt for landscapes). <br>

You should figure out what you actually need to take the pictures you want. Then you should develop an approach of actually<br>

taking the pictures. That approach depends, to some extend, on the camera you use. My 8x10 lack back shift and rise, which my 4x5 has, but I don't feel limited by this, even though I sometimes use the movements on 4x5. </p>

 

I am using an old Sinar Norma. These cameras from the 60's are extremely well made, compatible with the modern Sinars,

very well made, rigid and adjustable (you can adjust friction and play of various things). In terms of built quality the norma puts

everything to shame that is produced these days (at least everything that I have personally touched).

I slide the two standards onto a short rail extension,

giving me a package that is more compact than many field cameras. Much smaller than any modern Sinar.

The Norma is a base tilt design and is not yaw free. However, shift is in the lens plane, meaning you don't mess up focus if you shift.

I guess this makes the camera well suited for architecture but less so for table top.

<p>Years ago I got a beaten up old manual Nikkor 85mm f/1.8. This lens is the predecessor of the familiar AIS 85mm f/2.0. It's the lens used for the crucial picture in the movie "Blow up". I paid next to nothing. The lens is mechanically very robust, has excellent image quality and a very creamy bokeh. It is the only one of manual nikkors that I still use regularly on digital. <br>

When I got my (first) digital SLR a year ago, I got a used Nikon 18-70mm zoom. The lens is a bit wobbly and could be faster, but I am very pleased with the image quality. It is sharp, light, small and has an excellent rendition of out-of-focus areas. Something the newer 18-200 and 16-85 wonder zooms fail badly at. In fact, I find the oof rendition of these lenses so horrific and distracting that I would never change the 18-70 for one of these lenses. </p>

Hi. I shoot landscape and architecture. I started out with 90mm, 150mm and 300mm. Some of my all time favourite pictures where

taken with the 150mm lens. I personally found the 300mm too long. Not so much in terms of focal length, but in terms of bellows

extension. I found the camera unstable on the tripod at this long extension, the bellows was stretched to its limit whenever I took a

picture

at a closer distance. I now use 75mm, 135mm and 240mm. The main point is that you can always crop, especially with LF.

This set (75 Nikkor, 135mm APO Sironar S and 240mm APO Ronar) is compact, sharp, contrasty and not too expensive.

All lenses allow reasonable, but not excessive movement. If I need as much shift as I had with my 90mm lens, I just take the 75mm

and crop. But the 90mm couldn't go as wide as the 75mm lens.

 

The same arguments work for 135mm vs 150mm and for 240mm vs 300mm.

 

Stefan

Chris,

 

I agree that the Fuji on 4x5 is roughly equivalent to 28mm on 35mm film. However, the Fuji can cover much more

than 4x5. You could stick a sheet of film of size 120mm x 180mm behind it and it would still cover. On this

format the image would look like 18mm on 35mm. On the other hand, the 28mm lens is not going to cover more than

the 24mm x 36mm of the 35mm-frame. The difference is that the 90mm LF lens covers 4x5 with movements,

while the average 35mm-lens does not allow for any movements. Hence the large format lens is actually capable of

covering a much wider angle than required for the intended format.

 

The message that I wanted to get across is this: If you put an 18mm lens on a 35mm camera and take only the center

portion of the frame and enlarge it a lot, you would not assume this to give a very sharp result, no? (Compared

to an 18mm lens that is dedicated to the format of the small center portion that you are actually enlarging.)

 

Stefan

I just wanted to point out that the Skopar, as far as I know, is a Tessar design, produced by one of the

premier companies of lenses before the war. The main difference between prewar lenses and early postwar lenses

is coating, which affects constrast but not sharpness. But even the contrast of an uncoated Tessar should be quite

good in most situations, due to its simple design (four lenses in 3 groups).

The Tessar is still considered to be very sharp, at least stopped down and at the center of its image circle. There is no reason

why the Skopar, if not damaged, shouldn't be very sharp as well, and I mean as sharp as modern normal lenses,

in particular at f/8 and well within its image circle.

 

 

The Fuji, on the other hand, is an extreme wideangle (the equivalent of a 17mm in good old 35mm format as far as coverage goes)

of not very recent design. I believe it is not surprising that the Fuji is not as sharp as the Skopar.

Designing normal lenses that are sharp in the center when stopped down is just not a very demanding task

by todays standards and has been done more than 100 years ago.

 

Finally, diffraction is taking its toll at f/16. The theoretical resolution limit of a lens at f/8 is twice that of the same lens at f/16.

I assume that both lenses are close to their theoretical limit at f/8 for the Skopar (which is f/4.5 wide open, I think)

and at f/16 for the Fuji.

 

In other words, the Skopar should be way sharper at f/8 than the Fuji at f/16. The Nikkor might be sharper, but I would

guess in the same situation the Skopar would still be much better.

I believe this has to be a problem with the film transport. The reason is that the top of the picture is cut off.

If something was blocked, then there is no reason why the top is cut off. There would be a black bar at the bottom,

but the image on the film would still be in the correct position. Is the black bar actually discernible (on the film) from the

unexposed areas between the negatives?

Peter,

 

I believe this subject has been discussed over and over. There is probably no detectable difference

in most situations. I personally went from an 150 APO-Sironar N to an 135mm APO-Sironar S.

I shot some of my best pictures with the Sironar N. The reason I switched was that I moved my lens

selection to the wider side because of bellows extension issues. I went for the Sironar S in 135mm

because of the additional 8 or 10mm of image circle. I find the 135mm Sironar N a bit lacking as far as image

circle goes. The 150mm Sironar N was fine, though. If you are happy with 135mm Sironar N, stick with it.

The Sironar S is optimized for a bit closer focussing, so you might see differences if you do a lot

of close ups. I personally have shot very nice close ups with the Sironar N, so I don't think that

the differences will be huge either. Some people claim that the Sironar S renders out of focus areas a bit

nicer, but agree that the Sironar N is pretty good in this respect, too.

 

Finally, I must say that I believe that people are far too much concerned with lens quality.

A different lens rarely makes a real difference (phantastic pictures, even technically perfect, have been

taken throughout the last century) what matters is composition, lighting, correct focus, f-stop, a good tripod,

cable release, development, ... You get the picture.

It is true, however, that the newest wideangles with their coverage of 110 degrees make it possible to get

pictures that could not really have been taken before. Whether this really adds to the artistic values

of the photographs is another matter.

Darryl,

 

I find it hard to believe that the standards can't be moved closer than 7 inches.

Usually a bag bellows is required for movements with a wide angle lens, but

most cameras 4x5 can focus a 90mm lens with the normal bellows.

It is possible that there is a way to slide the standards on the the rail independent of

what you do with the focussing mechanism? Sinars and several other monorails

work like that: You coarse focus by sliding the standards on their rail and then

use the (usually geared) focussing mechanism to achieve fine focus.

You might also be able to setup the camera in such a way that the two standards

are on the same side of the tripod mounting block, allowing them to be very

close together.

The max bellows draw of the ebony 45S is, as someone already mentioned,

about 270mm. So you won't be able to focus a 300mm normal lens like the Nikkor,

which needs around 300mm of bellows (probably a bit less because the center of the

lens is a bit in front of the lensboard).

However, there are companies out there who sell Linhof-compatible extender-

lensboards (an extension tube that on one end mounts to the camera like a usual

lensboard and that accepts a lens in, say Copal 1, shutter).

(Ebonies take Linhof Technika lensboards, right?) These things come in different

lengths and usually you can combine different tubes to get various lengths.

You should probably get at least 50mm of extension.

 

On the other hand, Ebony sells an extender back, specifically for the 45S and

the SW models, I think. This should get you enough enough extension.

I am guessing that some Chinese made extension tubes will be far cheaper than the

Ebony extension back.

My Seiko on a Fujinon W 1:6.3 150mm operates just as the one you have on your 90mm lens.

Maybe that's how the Seikos for Fuji work.

If light and reasonably priced is your objective, a lot of people, including me, are using

a 240mm G-Claron on 8x10 with great success. The official specs say that these lenses

don't cover 8x10, but in reality the specs are extremely conservative and stopped down a

bit you can get 80 degrees out of them, which is an image circle of about 400mm

for the 240mm G-Claron. Several people report

that they are using a 210mm G-Claron on 8x10, with some room for movements.

The G-Clarons are only single coated

and have been discontinued recently, but you can get excellent new samples and maybe

even a new one if you look around.

The 240mm version comes in a Copal 1 shutter, has an f/9 aperture (which I don't find to

be a problem) and takes 52mm filters. Dykinga uses a 270mm G-Claron on 4x5.

He apparently does not mind that it is only single coated.

This can't be the case, really. Usually the D40 comes with a 18-55mm lens. Are you

sure you didn't use that? At the 18mm end the 18-55mm lens is quiet a bit wider than

24mm. Usually the focal length indications on zoom lenses are not very accurate,

but they are certainly not that far off. And, the focal length indicated on the lens

is (close to) the actual focal length, not some equivalent focal length in a different format.

Moreover, manual or not shouldn't make any difference whatsoever since, luckily,

on SLR's one still sets the focal length by hand. I wonder when they decide that lenses

with actual zoom rings are too expensive to manufacture.

I don't know anything about your camera. However, while the Quickload holders can be

attached to an international back after removing the ground glass assembly if I remember

correctly (this certainly applies to the Polaroid holders), they can also be slid under the

ground glass as a usual film holder. I don't think there should be any problems.

 

Stefan

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree with the comments saying that minimizing

camera weight gets rid only of a small fraction of the total weight.

However, if the camera was relatively light (and I don't insist on long extensions),

I might be able to get away with a lighter tripod. On the lens side, I use a 240mm G-

Claron and a 450mm Fuji, both in Copal 1 shutters, both 52mm filter thread.

It doesn't get much lighter than that. The 450mm lens requires a relatively long

extension, and I might be ready to leave that at home.

(If I wanted to bring both lenses, the Wehman sounds like a good deal.)

 

What I find sort of annoying is the setup time. My dream is to set up the tripod, slap

the camera on the quick release and start focusing.

That is why I am drawn toward the Ebony non-folders.

I might add that I am also considering going to 5x7 if my dream 8x10 does not exist

or turns out too expensive.

Looking at the daily sampling of pictures on photo.net, I find myself getting more and more tired

of digitally manipulated "photographs".

Like many others, this draws me into the opposit direction: Contact printing of LF negatives.

Currently I am using a Sinar Norma 8x10 and I am thinking about getting into platinum printing.

Here is my question:

 

Is there any decent, light, fast 8x10 camera?

I understand that the Norma is relatively small and light as 8x10 monorails go.

But still too heavy and complicated to set up.

It would be enough if the camera accomodated essentially normal lenses. I am interested in

Michael-Kenna-like composition and maybe closeups.

Huge movements are not so important (front rise, swing and tilt should do the job).

What is important is light weight and fast operability.

I am looking for an 8x10 equivalent of an Ebony SW45 or 45S.

The 8x10 Ebonys are way overpriced, I think.

 

Any thoughts?

The Fotoman does not allow any movement, right? So all three lenses you mention

provide adequate coverage (the APO Ronar has an image circle of only 264mm, the other

two lenses cover 8x10, the G-Claron easily).

I would stick with the APO Ronar. Make sure you get the coated version (that is, if you are

on a budget, an uncoated APO Ronar in barrel would be slightly difficult to use because

of the lack of a shutter, but it might be had at a bargain price). The G-Claron is the

largest and heaviest of the three and I don't like the way G-Clarons render out-of-focus

areas (bokeh). Moreover, the G-Clarons are only single coated, but I think this is not a

problem. The difference between single coated and multi-coated is not as big as many

people think, in particular if simple designs are concerned (the G-Claron is a plasmat

with six elements in four groups).

I have no experience with the Nikkor, but a lot of people are happy with it (as far as I know

this is a tessar (4 elements in 3 groups)).

I have personally used the APO Ronar and the G-Claron (the latter lens in a different

focal length), and the Ronar is very sharp and contrasty.

(Just for completeness, the Ronar is a so-called dialyte, i.e., 4 elements airspaced,

symmetrical.)

If size and weight is no issue (and a No. 3 shutter works with the camera) you might

get one of the BIG, HEAVY f 5.6 plasmats on eBay. They often seem to go for lower prices

than the compact lenses in this focal length, even though they are much more expensive

new (much more glass).

Finally, there is also a 300mm (or 305mm?) Fuji which is comparable to the Nikkor.

Dear Rodrigo,

 

if the lens looks very different from the Super Angulon on Schneider's webside

and is so small, then it must be an Angulon, which means it is probably even

older than 70's. The Super Angulon's existed in f/5.6, f/8 and f/6.8 (the recent "classic"

version), but all of them are rather big, certainly more than 2 inches long. The Super

Angulon Classic (the only f/6.8 Super Angulon) seems to be rare. I have only seen one

once at a shop in Germany. On eBay you can often find Angulons. Check and compare

with your sample.

 

Anyhow. If you are looking at an Angulon, 400 Dollars seems to by way too expensive.

Nice job, Harold. What did you do? Adjust brightness and increase contrast selectively

using photoshop or something similar?

 

As for the softness at the top of the picture, it is pretty clear that the plane of sharp focus

hits the trees quite a bit below the top end of the picture.

I think a little less tilt would have been better, but I don't think that you could have

gotten everything you wanted in focus without stopping down more.

Dear Avi,

 

I have the f/4.5 lens. It is still relatively small for an f/4.5 wideangle (about the same size as 90mm f/6.8, so increased weight and size of the faster lens is not so much an issue) and actually

allows for movements, one of my main reasons to shoot LF.

This is why I chose it over the slower lens, which has a much smaller

image circle (you can easily find the lens data online).

My guess is that the 75mm f/6.8 is adequate sharpness wise, but focussing these slow wideangles is not easy.

Light falloff will be a problem, so get a center filter

(which is expensive and I find it degrades sharpness) if you plan to shoot slides. (This will be a problem with the faster lens as well.)

 

Yes, you can correct light falloff in photo shop, but you easily loose information in the center or in the corners

due to bad exposure caused by uneven illumination.

Neg film has enough latitude so that you can always correct for the

light falloff either digitally or under the enlarger.

 

This did not exactly answer your question, but I hope there is some reasonable information here.