jasonluttrell

<p>Hi!<br>

I have an Elmarit-R 90 first version which I use with a Nikon D5000 body via the Leitax mount. I like that lens quit a lot but I realize it is not perfect in many areas. Anyway what bothers me the most are the colors: comparing to my Nikon kit lens (yeah, I went from kit lens strait up to Leica!) the colors look much less saturated. Not in low light though, just with something like "not-to-dark" overcast up. For example, on a sunny day the images would look to brownish and dull, until I set the color balance manually to try to achieve a natural looking image. Than, after saturation boosted quite a bit, the shadows look too blue. Are those the colors one would expect from the first version Elmarit? I also though it could be because I'm using it in a digital body in which the reflective nature of the sensor's surface could create some flare inside the lens.<br>

I was wondering if the second version Elmarit might perform better color wise.<br>

Appreciate your help!</p><div>[ATTACH=full]447518[/ATTACH]</div>

I've noticed the colors being off on sunny days too

this is the 65 mm

Jason, your G-Claron doesn't have separation. You haven't shown us y'r Super Angulons but given your mistake with the G-Claron you're probably wrong about them too.

 

Used lenses are used lenses. Some are also abused lenses. That's why we buy them with the right of return.

 

Are any used LF lenses generally not safe to buy? Nearly all Voigtlaender Apo-Skopars and 58/5.6 Grandagons/Technikons are badly separated. Cement problem. Funny thing is, my 58/5.6 Grandagon has spectacular rings of fire at the edges of the cemented elements and shoots very well.

 

Bottom-of-the-barrel used lenses are generally not to be counted on, but my very inexpensive (well, relatively) 65/5.6 SA is just fine. My $ 50 150/9 G-Claron cells are just fine.

 

In other words, buy carefully and with the right of return.

Thanks for the advice. Do you know what is wrong with those elements? I took it out and what ever that is is between the glass. The other two lenses look very similar.

Very old lenses might have separation from all manufacturers. But several decades ago the German government banned the glues used in those old lenses and all German lens manufacturers had to change the glue they used. Rodenstock had no more problems with separation then Schneider and lenses from Rodenstock after that change have not had that problem.

You may have unfortunately bought enough old lenses to have experienced problems with one or the other. But Rodenstock lenses do and did not have this problem for decades. Since I was the U.S. product manager from 86 till 2015 I have personal knowledge with this. And you have never handled as many a Rodenstock lenses as I have or talked to as many users and dealers as I have.

Lastly, process lenses are not normally used in a darkroom, enlarging lenses are. I operated a Robertson process camera in the AF and sold lenses to commercial print shops for process camera use. They were all outside the wet area.

Thanks for your response. I am not at all familiar with large format lenses. I believe they handle flaws much better than 35 mm lenses. Would you expect that seperation around the entire circumstance of the lens, say 1/4 of the way to the middle, would affect the IQ much?

Just got a schneider g claron 210 f9 for 50 bucks. The seller said it has a little dust, but both pair of cemented elements are separating. I kind of want to repair it using some new basalm. I don't know where to get basalm and if it's worth the risk. Anyone have any experience re cementing lenses? Any suggestions?

And fyi its the plasmat model

The lens cap shutter works fine in studio-like situations, but would be tough with modern film outdoors. As said above, common lenses that you can pull from folders and such won't do the job. Long ago I had a Calumet 4x5 and couldn't afford a lens. I used a 135 mm Tessar from a folding camera and it barely covered the corners. You're already doing far better than that, and 135 is on the wide side of normal. I kept telling myself the darker corners were artistic. You need a proper wide angle lens in a shutter if you want to go that way. Considering the cost of a trip, it should be possible to find something used for a reasonable price. IMO, perfectly decent photos have been taken with normal lenses and if you don't have 4x5 experience it might be a good idea to use what you've got. There's a learning curve and I'd be doing a lot of practicing before going on a trip. Expect to wreck a lot of shots for reasons you don't yet know about! I'd also duplicate my shots with whatever camera I normally use.

thanks for the reply

We still don't know it's a 4x5 Crown; the OP just said a Crown.

hi it is a 4x5

We still don't know it's a 4x5 Crown; the OP just said a Crown.

its a crown

Hi peopl. I just got a crown Graflex for 20 bucks on craigslist. It's a bit beat up but the bellows look good and the lens is clean and sounds accurate. It has a Schneider 135 4.7.

I want something wider to take to Yellowstone here in a few months. I want to spend as little as possible. I found a Hermagis Hellar 105 4.5 enlarging lens in some of my stuff. I'm wondering if I can make a board for it and just do long exposures stopping down then covering it up quickly.

Does any one know if it should focus to infinity? Should it cover the negative? Am I missing anything. I know very little about large format. Thanks for any advise.

There is a menu item for exposure compensation in the flash alone. Overall compensation (top panel) affects ambient and flash equally.

 

Automatic exposure with multiple flash units is a fools errand. You spend more time fiddling than shooting. Get a flash meter, set everything in manual mode, and adjust the lighting ratios and exposure according to the meter readings. Do it right the first time.

Thanks for the reply. The compensation in the flash is set to 0 so that's not the problem. I'm not having this problem when to use multiple flashes.

[ATTACH=full]1301802[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=full]1301858[/ATTACH]

What in the world is that?!

[ATTACH=full]1298921[/ATTACH]

That's awesome!

I couldn't say one way or the other; best bet is probably ask the person you got it from.

 

I wouldn't even be confident about "unknown" 35mm film. For example, even if the end has never been in a camera it's possible that the previous owner has a curious child who pulled the film out to look at it (then wound it back in).

 

If you develop your own film you COULD try pulling out a foot or two of film and develop it (you have to do this in the dark). If it has been fogged, or otherwise used, you'd expect it to show something. If unused it should be perfectly clear.

Thanks for the response. The person who owned it passed away. I think im just going to try and process a foot or so like you suggested.

Agreed with Bill C.

 

That looks like a 70mm type 2 perf film pre-loaded into a Hasselblad cartridge.

 

Someone with an A70 film back would love to have that, assuming it's unexposed.

Can i assume it's not exposed if some of the film is still sticking out like with 35mm film?