Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,693   Posts: 1,548,960   Online: 777
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 48
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,427
    "To calculate effective coverage as related to 35mm lenses;
    fl divided by diagonal of format, multiplied by 50"

    43 gives a better (closer to reality) than 50

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Eastern, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,020
    Images
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm View Post
    "To calculate effective coverage as related to 35mm lenses;
    fl divided by diagonal of format, multiplied by 50"

    43 gives a better (closer to reality) than 50
    quite right Dan

    by using Pythagoras the diagonal of a 24x36mm rectangle is 43.266615

    had you heard of this calculation before Dan? i kind of made it up, i thought

    Ray

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,429
    Images
    90
    I've recently been looking at a copy Handbook of Photography by Henney and Dudley, copyright 1939. It has illustrations of all the clasic lens designs and a number of formulas. Plus a lot of discussion of how the elements in these designs function.
    You may be able to find a cheap copy at a used book shop, or perhaps a library sale.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    7
    Hi Matt:
    Since you’ve made several lenses from the Greene bible, you are already successfully launched on a career of trial and error. Your hunt for “sources for designs of the lenses” is a pointless exercise.
    For example, you can look at http://dioptrique.info/ for all the details on lens’ composition, BUT you’ll never find the elements on the shelves of Anchor Optics or Surplus Shed or any other place that I know of. They just won’t have the correct combination of focal length, surface curvature, glass composition, etc for you to reconstruct the classic 19th century lenses, let alone anything since. Better for you to build on your experience, already knowing that a duplet is better than a single element, and see what you can build from available pieces. Try a triplet, and see what placing a negative element between two positive yields. All trial and error, but you are already a lucky guy.

    FYI the John Evans book is available on Surplus Shed under books … bend those rays … J

  5. #15
    Dave Wooten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Vegas/mysterious mohave co. az, Big Pine Key Fla.
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    2,715
    Images
    20
    www.rolyn.com

    look at the on line catalog or ask to be sent the hard copy...
    [FONT="Arial Black"][/FONT]

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,427
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Heath View Post
    quite right Dan

    by using Pythagoras the diagonal of a 24x36mm rectangle is 43.266615

    had you heard of this calculation before Dan? i kind of made it up, i thought

    Ray
    Pythagoras' theorem is very old, quite well-known.

    Your shortcut for comparing diagonal angles of view isn't, AFAIK, widely known but I've been using it for years. I mean, it is obvious.

    Cheers,

    Dan

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    144
    Ray: thanks for the info!

    most of my home-mades i'll be mounting in front of a packard shutter, so i'll be able to use slightly faster shutter speeds.

    how do you mount the actual lens in the tube? since they're all different sizes. i've been using foamcore as suggested by the Primitive Photography book, although i'm not convinced it's the best way.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by walter23 View Post

    I've been playing with diopters lately after serendipitously discovering that a Nikon +2 eyepiece diopter alone covered 4x5 and 8x10 as a 320mm f/16 to f/22. I ordered a +3 diopter for a couple of bucks and it turns out that it's about a 150-200mm lens. When I put the two together back to back the focal length becomes quite short (75-90mm?) and the coverage shrinks down to about 4x5 or less. I'd assume this arrangement is vaguely related to the asymmetric turner reich triple convertible I use.
    Walter: that sounds a lot like the 'portrait lens' i just built. asymmetrical duplet. the larger element goes in front, and the focal length is going to be less than either of the two elements by themselves. there's a formula somewhere for that, but i don't have it handy.

  9. #19
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,675
    John MacManus,

    Thank you for that link!

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,183
    Images
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm View Post
    Walter, to get from a lens' strength in diopters to its focal length (or vice versa), use the formula published here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...pt/foclen.html
    Nikon must be using a different convention for their eyepiece diopters, because when I apply that formula I get a very different focal length from the one I measure. Eg., my +2 diopter measures as a 320mm lens, but 1/2 = 0.5 meters or 500mm. My +3 is not 333mm but rather 200mm or so.


    As an aside; this is really weird; I'm being hit by a huge dose of deja vu. I wonder if I had some conversation about diopters 3 or 4 years ago that I've forgotten all about. I have images of street photography with a diopter in my head. Maybe zombies or something too. Go figure. Must be a neurological misfire.
    Last edited by walter23; 11-11-2007 at 04:14 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    The universe is a haunted house. -Coil
    .

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin