ron_shaw

The Schneider website gives 225mm of coverage at F6.1, and 249mm

coverage at F22, so I would think it would perform very well on 4x5,

or even 5x7.

Many shutters are made as to be somewhat universal, and can be fitted

to different lenses. It may be made to operate down to 4.5 or so (like

many press lenses). If you want to check it, install a known lens on

your camera, and set the aperture to 5.6 (or 8), and aim your camera

at a brightly lit wall, and use your hand held meter to read off the

center of your ground glass and note the reading. Now install the 75mm

lens, and set the aperture to the same f stop as the first lens, and

again read the value from the center of the ground glass. If the

readings are the same, then its no problem. If they are different, you

can now 'calibrate' the new lens in this same fashion. This is how

replacement shutter/aperture assemblies are calibrated for use on a

lens.

I have a set of the cheap 3 light Smith-Victors (sold as a kit, about

$180 from Adorama and others), which use two 500W and one 250W lamps,

and if I recall properly, I was getting about 1/125 at F5.6 or so on

VPS (at EI 125). However, after experiencing the heat of tungsten

lights, promptly bought some electronic flash units. Subjects also

squint under the bright lights, so it was difficult to get decent

shots. Tungsten isnt kind to food or living things (but they work fine

for still life/product shots, if the objects can stand the heat).

Yes, with typical daylight, handholding Velvia is certainly possible. I often shoot Velvia at 1/500 at 5.6 or so when the light is plentiful.

Yes, the Nikkor Micro lenses make very good general purpose lenses as well. My 55mm Micro Nikkor was my first lens (and only lens for awhile). Worked just fine as a normal FL lens.

I have and use a 162mm Optar on a SG, and it has enough coverage to

use full rise (19mm on the SG), and it is usable with tilts, also. The

longer the fl, the greater the coverage, and the closer you focus, the

greater the coverage. Tilts on the SG are not difficult, contrary to a

previous posters response. Most landscape shots only need about 5

degrees tilt.

The Cadet has good bank for the buck, but I think the wimpy tripod

mounting may make it unsuitable for even slight breezes. How about a

nice cheap rugged Speed or Crown Graphic with a 135-180mm lens?

I also think its much closer than most people seem to think it is.

They should be fine, if in decent condition. Most LF cameras are

fairly simple devices. If the camera takes standard film holders, it

should take a polaroid back.

I think they may be the same as the Congo lenses. If so, here is the

website: http://www.cosmonet.org/~congo/index_e.html

The SG's do not have a front curtain or a back curtain. They have a

continuous fabric curtain with four slits of varying height. The

entire curtain moves (vertically) at one time. The shutter speed is a

function of spring tension and slit height. Even on 1/1000 sec., the

travel time is quite long, by comparison to a 35mm camera. The slit

may have exposed the film for 1/1000 sec., but it takes much longer

than that to expose the entire sheet of film. I would recommend trying

it, just for the heck of it, but I dont think it will work for high

quality images.

As far as I know, ISO100 is the fastest available anymore. (Up until

recently, Kodak had (the older)E200 available in 4x5, but I havent

seen that available for awhile). I use a lot of Provia, both the older

RDPII and the newer RDPIII. I find it serves my general purpose needs

quite well. If you can use largish apertures, you may still be able to

handhold in sunlight using ISO100, or, as you mentioned, push it.

The thought of using the focal plane shutter on my SG makes me

shudder. I guess others have had good luck using it, but I thing that

vibration and curtain travel times would make getting sharp results

difficult, at best. I would look for a lens/shutter combo. If you want

to save money, look for a Wollensak Raptar (or Graphlex Optar)which

are usually inexpensive, as they are 'press' lenses, but can give very

good performance.

You will probably find that it isnt metric. My old Wollensak lens

wasnt, anyway. I used the closest metric step-up ring and filed down

the threads until I was able to force it on (permanently). I can now

use my 52mm filters on it.

Ive had good luck with Kodak EPN and EPP, also. Astia is probably

better than Provia for portraiture. I like Provia for most

applications, but it still has typical Fuji reds which are quite

saturated, and doesnt reproduce skin tones as accurately as old

faithful EPN.

At Chris Perez lens testing site

(http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html), the press lenses listed

seem to follow the typical pattern of improving with stopping down.

I would recommend the hat trick over the lenscap trick, however. Just

to reduce potential vibration problems <|:-)

Wollensak made a lot of LF lenses in thier day. I have a 162mm Optar

(made by Wollensak, same as the in house Raptar), and its a very sharp

lens. At 260mm, it should have plenty of coveraage for 4x5 I would

think. Try a simple test by projecting an image on a wall, and you can

probably get a rough idea on coverage.

Thats about it. My first LF images were done without movements, and

after seeing the resulting chromes, I was hooked forever.

I use a polarizer often with uncoated lenses, and they are just as

effective as with a coated lens.

The image circle is 320mm when focused at infinity. How often do you

do that? At 1:1, it is 640mm. At a typical hyperfocal setting, it may

be a good deal larger than 320mm.

Terry, yes, there was a bit of humor in the statement, but it is based a bit on truth. The reason most digital cameras use shorter FL lenses is because digital imagers are fairly small, hence the need for shorter FL lenses. Imagers can (and are) being made larger (like the 18x26mm 6MP ones in the Kodak DC460), but resolution in digital can be achieved with higher density imagers, unlike film. It seems the current push is in increasing the pixel count, and keeping smaller sized imagers. If the desired resolution can be had in a small size, there is no need for a larger physical size. I doubt the future will need large format. (although Im sure the future will still need movements). I have been rooted in film for the last 35 years, but Im amazed at how quickly digital is arriving. I doubt I will purchase another film camera. Digital cameras already outsell film based SLRs. Digital imagers are improving faster than storage solutions (and battery solutions, too!) Check out the image quality that can be had from the new crop of 3+ MP cameras like the Nikon Coolpix 990. These cameras can already make excellent 8x10s, for under $1k retail. The lens used is something like 7-25mm (dont remember for sure), which is like a 35-115 in the 35mm world. Not to sway from the subject, but we can no longer ignore the future, and need to think hard before spending large amounts of money on a camera purchase. Image stabilization techniques are showing up on digital cameras, also. The future is almost here, guys!

When focused at infinity, it probably is not 90mm. It depends on the

optical design and the 'back focus', but it may be close to 90mm. To

achieve 1:1 on the ground glass, the bellows will be racked out to

twice the infinity position (with 2 stops light loss). Using tilts,

you can get 3 feet to infinity with less stopping down, a real benefit

in LF.

Check this site for lots of

info on LF lenses: http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html . I

believe this lens is the same as the Wollensak WA Raptar f/6.3.

Wollensak made lenses for Graphlex for many years rebadged as Graphlex

Optars. I think in the 60's, Graphlex lenses were made by Rodenstock,

but I am not sure exactly when this happened. This is a decent

performer within its limits, the biggest limitation being coverage, as

Doug has already mentioned. It does cover 4x5, so be careful to keep

the optical axis centered on the film when you use tilts.

With digital quickly rising over the horizon, and with the shorter FL lenses that go with smaller imagers, I think long lenses are going to become obsolete. I bet you wont see much more developement in these long lenses. There! I turned a N vs. C debate into a film vs. digital debate!