Frank Petronio

135/1.8 Sigma ART for Nikon with USB Dock $1300

 

Three weeks old and perfect condition but I did take it on a trip and it doesn't feel right trying to return it with the typical mild signs of use of a newer lens, no defects, scratches, perfect glass. I love the rendering, sharpness, speed, and build quality but do not care for the focal length. Includes a similarly new 82mm BW F-Pro XS Digital filter (installed immediately) and new Sigma USB Dock. Over $1525 invested. Absolutely clean and definitely a sharp copy, focusing is far quicker than the Nikon 105 and accurate too. Fine tuned using the dock to my D810. Will include original box and materials, USA receipt from MPEX.com(Midwest Photo Exchange in Columbus, Ohio). Please email me for sample images if you are serious (if you PM then include your email address). Thanks

 

Samples: Frank Petronio photographer - Blog - Sigma 135/1.8 ART Lens Samples

 

35/2 Zeiss Milvus for Nikon

 

 

Zeiss Milvus 35/2 for Nikon ZF2 $900

 

Purchased October 2016 from Lens Rentals (I rented it and kept it because it was a sharp copy) and also in excellent plus condition with all original materials. I have other Milvus lenses, the build quality is wonderful, lovely lens with great rendering and sharpness. I just don't use it very often. BW F-Pro covered since first minute, filter included. Sent in an OEM Zeiss box sent from Lens Rental but the serial number on the box does not match.

 

Buy this knowing you're getting a good one.

 

Price is NET to me after fees

Also, most of these cameras, whether digital or film, are going to be slow at focusing and have significant

shutter lag. Of the newer digital cameras, the Terry Richardson favorites are fairly snappy if they have a

nice nice contrasty subject in good light that isn't moving a lot... like a Terry Richardson portrait.

If you already have the Canon 17 and 24 tilt-shift lenses then I'll assume that you must already have a decent

Canon DSLR body for them as well... and while the Sony A7/D800 36mp may be a better sensor for

architecture than an older 16 or 24mp sensor, is the performance gain really so amazing that you'd invest in

an entirely new system from a manufacturer who still hasn't produced a usable range of professional quality

lenses and instead forces you to rely upon third party adaptors (that would be Sony)?

 

Won't Canon eventually - like within a year - have a higher resolution DSLR body that can use your fine tilt-

shift lenses fully and properly? Without having to stick a wobbly adapter between lens and sensor, which

seems like a weak link no matter how hopeful you are and even if that fancy adapter costs $$$.

 

And if you are stitching, then why not simply stitch an extra frame or two and you're capturing the same amount of

information as you would from the higher mp sensor?

 

I just hate to see anyone spend money chasing hype. I bet the difference between a Canon 5D2 shot against

an A7r isn't going to mean much in your final results. I can't help but think shooting the Canon body with

those lenses is going to be very much easier, steadier, and possibly even sharper in real world scenarios.

 

As for shooting 4x5 around TO, there is http://www.elevatordigital.ca/film.html and Bob is a great man.

Personally I started shooting only one sheet of many set-ups since my failure rate has dropped with

experience, and I like the discipline of "one sheet per shot". It certainly saves money and sharpens your

shooting muscle.

The backs from older 4x5 Sinars are designed to accept the metal Graflex Graphic folding focusing hoods. They even have the notch for

the spring-loaded open/close tab. This was even illustrated in the old Norma literature. Early F/P backs share this design. Once they went

to the stupid Metering Back design of the F2 this capability was designed out.

 

You could but another old back. Or maybe even a whole new rear since it sounds like you got a hodgepodge camera built from parts

anyway.

 

Graphic hoods could be stolen off unsuspecting Crown Graphics or purchased on eBay for about $50.

I used to work in advertising and (ten years ago) the larger outdoor billboards were printed at 11 dots per

inch, so a 44' long billboard required 44' x 12 (inches) x 11 (dpi) = 5808 "dots". Optimally you want two

pixels for a printed dot, so 11615 pixels would be ideal. That's assuming you would be using the single

image across the entire width, which usually isn't the case.

 

Most digital files "print up" just fine and a D70 file would be plenty of information in normal circumstances.

It's a fallacy that people believe billboards, bus wraps, and other large graphics need to be super high-

resolution when in fact, they look pretty horrible up close.

 

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, before the D70 came out (ca. 2004) the mosts popular professional

Kodak digital cameras that cost over $28K were the same resolution as the D70. People used those files

for everything and they usually looked great.

I met Martin in person when he helped repair my camera while I was in NC for a shoot. What a nice man.

Condolences to his family.

 

Bob Watkins is also a friend and an excellent technician!

A 4x5 enlarger set-up can often be found for $150 or less, just depends on luck and patience. The larger enlarger will be

better built, more stable, better all around even if you never do 4x5 film.

Haha I used to do these Visqueen darkrooms in rental apartment basements without plumbing, I'd carry 5-

gallon buckets of water, whatever it took.

 

Lots of photojournalists used to process hotel bathrooms, do a search, there were even suitcase-sized

enlarger kits. True, you weren't going to get Zone System consistency working in conditions like this, but

it was serviceable... people processed film and made prints just off WW2 battlefields for goodness sake.

Two layers of black Visqueen will be plenty dark enough and keep dust down. You can build a wooden sink to suit. And

venting a modest amount of fumes into the basement won't hurt anyone.

I'd get exactly the same camera as you already have, or newer. And consider the excellent 60CF lens as

an everyday carry lens, it is excellent, as is the 100CF.

I'm a Rolleiflex fan but not because they are necessarily rugged cameras... they have very fine mechanisms that don't

tolerate sand or grit. A much more rugged version would be a Rolleicord, a simpler camera with less delicate parts.

 

A Mamiya RB67 is a rugged camera too. I like Hasselblads better personally but an RB is the cockroach of MF SLRs.

I have that RRS tripod too... I wish they made a good pan-tilt head to go with it. But it is the best photo tripod ever!

I'm amazed at the depth and prices of the RRS product line, that there is a market for all of it. Everything I've bought has

been top-notch and it's even more impressive that its made in the USA. It's very interesting that the owner speaks

Chinese yet has a domestic manufacturing operation.

 

But... now I don't feel so bad about buying a Kirk product either. Thanks

What is the story between Really Right Stuff and Kirk Enterprises? I get the impression that Kirk slavishly copies

whatever RRS invents and then sells it a few bucks cheaper. Then the Chinese copy Kirk.

 

What is the back story from when those companies started?

there are two windows on the opposite side

Probably Kodak for figuring out the workflows for each generation of films and processes... from the mail-

in processing to making slideshows to making inexpensive color prints to one-hour processing - most of

that was figured out by Kodak and it became the standard of its time. Right up to the RAW digital and

color profiled inkjet workflow we use today.

It's hard to beat the focus tracking of the D300 until you get into the D700-D800 range. Considering that even a mint D300 isn't worth that much anymore, getting a reasonable video camera or even a close-out Panasonic GH1 or GH2 camera might give you better results at about the same cost as "upgrading" the D300 to a lessor DSLR with mediocre video.

It's been a while since I hung out here and I am not sure if I can mention ePray but there is a seller

named "mwmabry" who I have boughten several Graphics from. He is knowledgable about them and

you can trust that their rangefinders and shutters are working properly. Of course he charges more than

the people who claim they found Grandpa's camera in the attic and know nothing about photography. To

me it is worth it in terms of avoiding hassles and repair charges.

 

MPEX.com (Midwest Photo Exchange) is also good. KEH is a little less knowledgable but they have

easy returns.

 

The reason I favor the top rangefinders is because they were the latest models and the cam, while a

real pain to change, is more reliable than the screw adjustments on the side-mounted Kalart

rangefinder, at least in my experience. I am sure a properly cleaned and adjusted Kalart is at least as

good but I've never been able to adjust them perfectly. In any event, switching lenses and adjusting

rangefinders or cams is a pain in the butt so many people work around that by scale focusing from the

stock 135 distance scale, or focusing on the ground glass (always the most accurate way). I'm arguing to just leave the camera in as stock a configuration as possible, stick with the 135/4.7 with the dedicated cam or factory adjusted Kalart RF.

 

It's good to note that if you want to do something like focus and shoot with a wide open lens, the depth

of field is very shallow and the margin of error for the rangefinder is usually much larger than the depth

of field, especially at closer portrait distances. If you think of the old press photographers using these

cameras remember that they often used flash, pushed the film, stopped down to f/22, shot from further

away and cropped in a lot because the 4x5 could withstand drastic cropping. Most modern large format

portraiture is done with tripod mounted cameras and ground glass focusing, in which case a Graphic

type camera is unnecessary unless you want a cheap, rugged, folding camera that is pretty compact

and simple.

 

I use a monorail for most of my work but have a Crown for down and dirty or handheld stuff.

Most view camera lenses your encounter will be mounted in leaf shutters - Copals, Compurs, and several old American

brands in the case of Graphics. If you buy a standard post WW2 4x5 Speed Graphic then you have the choice of using

either the lens' leaf shutter or the focal plane shutter built into the body.

 

A Crown Graphic is similar to Speed Graphic without the built-in focal plane shutter. This gives the Crown the ability to

use wider (shorter) lenses and also lightens it by a noticeable amount.

 

A barrel lens is simply lens without a leaf shutter, usually the elements are mounted into a simple Brass barrel with a

mounting flange. I wouldn't want to start with a barrel lens myself.

 

Using small format lens focal length equivalents to decide on large format lenses is not as simple as it might seem, as

you increase the format you'll find that they "feel" different. In any case the 135 is perfectly matched to the bellows length

and capability of the Graphic press cameras... You can get away with a 180 or 210 but they present other compromises

on those cameras. Start with the 135, many great portraits have been made with them.

 

Also, you will not be able to reliably focus at headshot portrait distances using the rangefinder or handholding (unless you

blast a lot of flash and shoot at f/22 or something). And you'll want to use the leaf shutter to sync your flash.

 

For what you want, a late model 4x5 Graflex Crown Graphic with a top rangefinder and any of the stock 135mm

lens/shutter combinations - along with a flash bracket, your choice of flash, and a suitable sync cord (PC or Bipost

depending on the shutter) - is the ticket. Know that he closest you can accurately focus the thing is torso length. And buy

from a reliable dealer with return privileges, as most of the items sold at auction are from ignorant -or worse sellers.

 

Graflex.org and the largeformatphography.info sites will provide you with a ton of reference materials to help get you

started and their forum members are very helpful.

 

Have fun!

 

Oh and the answer about using the focal plane shutter? If you use a barrel lens or your leaf shutter breaks... Also the focal plane shutter can go to 1/1000th versus the 1/400th or 1/500th in case you want to attempt sports photography ;-)

 

$400 is a fair price for a Crown Graphic with Xenar if in good condition, check the rangefinder.

While they aren't built as well, the modern Voightlander Leica mount lenses never fog and a new one won't

be worn out... big advantages over buying "bargain" older Leica glass. After blowing a lot of money on so-

called "user" Leica lenses, I realized that no such creature exists - either buy nearly mint or new ones, or

none at all.

 

In my experience, every older Leica lens that shows cosmetic signs of use also has been worn internally, along with the natural hazing that occurs with older glass. They are beautifully made but Brass and Aluminum do wear out and get sloppy, and no amount of grease makes them tight over the long haul (usually the regreasing is just enough to get them sold on eBay safely).

 

Also, the old coatings on desirable lenses like the 35/2.8 Summaron, 50/1.5 Summarit, and 50/2 Summicron collapsible is super soft and fragile, which is why they are nearly all flawed or soon will be once you start using them. It took me a few $$$ to realize this.

 

You're probably better with an uncoated 50/3.5 Elmar if you want a vintage lens with character, they are plenty sharp enough and have a distinctive look compared to modern glass. The 1950s stuff is just sort of in-between.

I still shoot quite a bit of 4x5 professionally and for me, Kodak Portra color negative is the only film

worth considering for large format color. Once that is discontinued, I should have an approximate year's

supply and the processing lab (http://www.4photolab.com) will be able to process C41 for at least a

year as well. I doubt Kodak will discontinue it before 2015 given their movie film obligations but nothing

is certain. Realistically I expect to be able to shoot large format color until 2017.

 

Shooting chromes is worthless except for the fact that they look nice on a light table.

 

Of course smaller suppliers like Ilford should continue to provide reasonable black and white film for

many years afterwards as I expect there will be a small but steady demand capable of keeping a "right-

sized" business profitable for another generation. B&W is reasonable to process in a simple home

darkroom so my gear will not suddenly become worthless, but I am careful not to over-invest in

extravagant equipment.

 

After enjoying the experience of using many fine, exotic cameras that I wasn't able to afford back in the

1980s-90s - wonderful Linhofs and Arca-Swiss cameras - I have settled on a versatile, professional

quality kit built around a vintage Sinar Norma "system" camera. I also have a Crown Graphic for

handheld and dirty work. The older Sinar Norma is, IMHO, the best of the Sinar line, with a higher build

quality than their later F- and P-series (which are not bad at all.) I have owned a Horseman as well -

they work well and are partially compatible with the Sinars - but for their modest price difference, they

are a bit cruder and heavier. Also parts are not as common.

 

But as with any used camera, buy on condition of the actual camera. A mint Horseman is going to be

better than a beat-up Sinar ;-p

 

Wide angle lenses on a large format camera feel different than the equivalent angle of view on a small

format FX camera. While there are times you simply need the width to capture an entire room or

building for an assignment, most architectural photographers find that they do the vast majority of their

best photos with moderately wide lenses, with a fast, modern 90mm being the most popular lens

(roughly a 28mm on FX). These would include the late model Rodenstock Grandagon N 90/4.5 and

Schneider 90/5.6 XL lenses, neither of which are cheap even nowadays. Frankly I would start with

either of these and a 4x5 Norma kit, shoot for a while before attempting some super wide (and I would

opt for something like the modern Schneider 58XL if I were). I have also stitched two shots made with

the 90mm for excellent results, plus it saved me needing to get a fancy lens for limited use.

 

I would also get a 150-210mm "normal" lens for details and other subjects - these are common and

inexpensive. Look for lenses in late model all-black Copal shutters, these will be the latest and least

likely in need of a CLA. Avoid lenses that have been remounted into newer shutters (check serial

numbers and reputation of seller).

 

For most architectural subjects you are not using tilts, but perhaps a swing depending on your shooting

position. Most of all you use rise and fall. If you opt for a CamboWide type camera be sure it is a later

model with more movements.

 

Other items that will assist your large format venture are getting the heaviest, tallest, best tripod

possible. I use a Gitzo Giant #504 with the Sinar Pan-Tilt head, also the largest RRS tripod and I carry

an aluminum step ladder. Raising the camera solves many problems ;-p You also should definitely get

a Harrison Changing Tent for loading holders if you lack a darkroom, the tent keeps the changing bag

from touching everything and spreading dust. Toyo makes the best film holders, although common

Fidelity and Lisco holders in good condition are fine. A tilting Silvestri focusing loupe is nice, I prefer a

simple 7x Horseman loupe and do not use any fresnel over my ground glass. Your DSLR is probably

the best meter out there, once you gain some experience comparing it to your results - but the good

thing is that Portra is a tolerant film, getting to within a stop will be fine. A Pentax Digital Spotmeter is

the gold standard, you can easily figure the range of values in your scene with one. A polaroid 405 back

with the current Fuji Instant pack film is also important for testing (and learning). You can scan and get

useful professional results with skillful use of an Epson 4990-700-750 scanner, although you should

invest in some good drum scans of your best images to know what the limitations are.

 

The nice thing is that you can assemble most of this outfit for about the same price as a f/2.8 zoom

lens ;-p

 

If you think you might rather stitch digital I wouldn't fault you. A fun alternative that appeals to many

clients and can be very satisfying is to shoot some alternative views with something like a Noblex

612UX (the one that focuses and also has a 5mm upward shift). They are sharp in the corners.

 

Good luck and buy a lot of film to help keep Kodak going!

My Nikkor 135 wasn't as good compared to the Rodenstocks and Schneiders so I sold it. Hopefully not to

you ;-p

 

That Toho is rare, it is a super light camera and he was probably just showing it off rather than setting up and using it.

I'd buy anything from a major manufacturer based on condition, as in having a recent service and

cleaning, new light seals, and proper function. If you're patient, someone will be selling a camera for $100

not so long after they've spent $100 to get it cleaned and adjusted.

 

If you're going to be picky, a used Canonet QL-17III is hard to beat, but the Olympus and Minoltas were

good too. There is a ton of info on these on the cameraquest website.

The D300 AF is superior to the D600 and D7000. Or to avoid controversy, let's just say the D300 AF is

excellent and more than good enough. I really like the wide array of AF points compared to the later

cameras.

 

Frankly if everything is working well, why not get a second low-milage D300 and better lenses/flash so

you have a good quality, redundant set-up that produces professional quality images? The resolution,

range, and low-light performance are more than sufficient to make professional quality images for years

to come. And it is really nice to have to identical cameras that you know really well.... Long lens on

one, wide on the other, easy to switch on the fly and not as heavy that you can't carry both at the same

time.

 

Put the rest into personal savings or smart marketing for your wedding business.

 

If you are going to get a FX body, hold out for an amateur's D700 with under 20K clicks for a hundred

bucks more.

 

But really, until the wedding photography is so profitable that you can buy two of whatever you want,

brand new at retail, then skimping by to get into FX is a mistake. Better to have a good pro DX system

that works well than an FX system that's only half there.