Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,224   Posts: 1,532,659   Online: 865
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 48
  1. #11
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    When the aperture is closed down to f:8 or more there should be no difference in coverage, as the aperture opening is the same in all cases and the glass design is the same in all cases...

    There is a small difference in the glass though, but not where it counts: The inner elements are narrower in the Copal version to allow them to fit in the smaller shutter throat. But the only practical difference should be in the maximum aperture.
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    522
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking View Post
    BTW, I believe this lens was also available in a large Compur shutter.
    Perhaps the Compur Electronic 5FS? Now that was one HONKIN' big shutter.

    Kerry

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,146
    Wow Ole,

    you got lucky on that one!
    I payed some 300 Euro on my 360 convertible last year... I watched eBay for more than six months to get one for an acceptable price. It is now my main lens on the 7x17.

    I also have a 300mm and 240mm version for the 8x10. All of them in perfectly working compound shutters.

    I really like the lens: it's big and impressive (a real chick magnet) and (most important) has lots of coverage on my 7x17.
    The only drawback is the weight but who cares about weight using that format? But my APO Ronar 600mm, without shutter, is even heavier.

    I'm very happy to hear that it also covers 12X20. Gives me some space when I might upgrade to something bigger when I'm retired

    Greetings,
    G

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    522
    I just want to point out what a great, veratile focal length 355mm/360mm/14" is for ULF use. Like Argus, it's one of my most used focal lengths on 7x17. When I was moving up to 7x17, I wanted to start out with the equivalents of the focal lengths I prefer on 4x10. My two most used lenses on that format are 150mm and 210mm. The 7x17 equivalents work out to 260mm and 360mm.

    On the 14x17 format I hope to eventually try, a 360mm focal negth is equivalent to about 100mm on 4x5. In all my years of shooting 4x5, first a 90mm and then a 110mm were my most used wide angle lenses. In fact, the 110mm is one of my most used lenses period. So, I'm sure I'll be very comfortable with a 360mm as my wide angle lens on 14x17.

    Plus, as Sandy mentioned, it' a great wide angle focal length for 12x20. Although the aspect ratios are different, it's roughly equal to a 150mm - 165mm lens on 4x10 (which have always been my most used focal lengths on that format, followed closely by the 210mm).

    Combine this with the fact that there are so many choices, both modern and classic, shutter mounted and in barrel, at relatively affordable prices that cover at least 7x17, and it's no wonder it's a popular focal length. Throw in the fact that many cover 8x20 or 14x17 and some even cover 12x20, and again, it's easy to understand why so many ULF photograhers claim a 355mm/360mm is their most used lens.

    Combine all of these advantages (popular focal length, huge coverage and affordable price) in one lens, and Sandy's recommendation of the 360mm convertible Symmar really makes a lot of sense. Of course, there are many other choices, but not all cover as much and most cost more - especially in shutter (although I'm surprised how little multicoated 360mm plasmats, especially the Fujinon-W and Nikkor-W sell for on eBay these days).

    Kerry

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    522
    OK, here's some actual weights of 355/360mm lenses that cover at least 7x17:

    355mm f9 G Claron in Copal No. 3 Shutter, 77mm Filters, 835g
    355mm f8 Convertible Symmar in Copal No. 3 Shutter, 105mm Filters, 1740g
    360mm f10 Fujinon A in Copal No. 1 Shutter, 58mm Filters, 475g
    360mm f6.3 Fujinon-W in Copal No. 3 Shutter, 86mm Filters, 1420g
    360mm F6.5 Nikkor-W in Copal No. 3 Shutter, 95mm Filters, 1420g
    360mm f6.8 APO Symmar in Copal No. 3 Shutter, 112mm Filters, 1350g

    The first two are single coated, the rest are multicoated. It's easy to see why the G Claron, that covers 12x20, is so popular and why the 360mm Fujinon A, which likely has the least usable coverage of the bunch, but is far and away the smallest and lightest, fetches some pretty ridiculous prices on the used market. It's also, by far, the hardest to find. The 360mm Fujinon-W is a bit of a sleeper. It can often be had at very reasonable prices and is reported to cover 8x20. It takes reasonably sized filters for a fast plasmat an is relatively compact, but weighs as much as most of the others.

    What I find odd is that when Schneider came out with their latest incarnation of the Symmar line, the APO Symmar-L, there was no 360mm focal length. Give the popularity and utility of this focal length, compared to the 480mm, it seemed like a strange ommision. However, given the plentitude of good 360mm lenses on the used market at bargain basement prices, maybe they decided that there just wasn't much of a market for a new 360mm plsmat selling for $2500 - $3000. Someone at Schneider once told me their biggest competition was not any of the other brands, it was their own used lenses. That may have played a part in their decision to not include a 360mm focal length in the APO Symmar-L line.

    Kerry

  6. #16
    Sanjay Sen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,251
    Images
    4
    Well, Kerry, 360mm convertible Symmar prices are about to go up - as soon as this thread starts showing up in search engine results. Maybe I should go out and get one before the price hike - seems like it will cover all future format upgrades for sometime!


    Best wishes,
    Sanjay

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    522
    Sanjay,

    You really think so. They seem to be fairly common on the used market, and with all the other choices (and I didn't even mention all the barrel lenses out there that cover 7x17 or greater), I doubt if they'll shoot up much in price. The ULF market isn't exactly huge. So, I dubt if demand will suddenly rise by any significant amount. I've actually observed prices on the newer 360mm plasmats dropping steadily over the last year or two. I've seen more than one 360mm Fujinon-W and Nikkor-W go for less than $500 recently. With prices of less than $500 for a newer, multicoated lens, how much above $400 do you think the older single coated convertible Symmars will go? The older lens might cover more, but there aren't THAT many people shooting 12x20 (and most of them probably already have a G Claron).

    Kerry

  8. #18
    Sanjay Sen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,251
    Images
    4
    Kerry, I was just joking! Anyway, reading this thread has been both a pleasure and very informative.

    I recently acquired a Symmar 5,6/150 (12/265) of the Linhof Technika variety in a Synchro Compur #1 for my 4x5 but haven't had an opportunity to try it out yet. Would you happen to know what formats this will cover up to - with both cells or either? The idea of being able to get two focal lengths out of one lens sounds appealing to me, but I have to shoot to find out if the longer focal length will work for me.

    (Sorry, I do not intend to hijack Sandy's thread about the Symmar 360, so we could start another thread if that sounds appropriate.)


    Best wishes,
    Sanjay

  9. #19
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    The Symmar 5,6/150 (12/265) covers 5x7" if well stopped down. Converted, you'll see quite a bit of "gruff" in the corners on 4x5" if you look too closely.

    See http://www.apug.org/forums/forum44/2...w-you-had.html for examples.
    Last edited by Ole; 05-12-2007 at 04:34 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Additional info
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Kerry,

    It suprised me that the 355mm f/8 convertible symmar in Copal 3 actually weighs about 100g more than the lens I have in Compound. I would have expected the opposite.

    I have also used the 360mm f/6.3 Fujinon-W. It should cover 8X20 since it barely misses 12X20. I actually purchased from someone who told me it would cover 12X20, but it just misses.

    BTW, the Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-N will also cover 7X17 with movements, not sure if it will go to 8X20.

    Sandy



    Quote Originally Posted by kthalmann View Post
    OK, here's some actual weights of 355/360mm lenses that cover at least 7x17:


    355mm f8 Convertible Symmar in Copal No. 3 Shutter, 105mm Filters, 1740g
    360mm f10 Fujinon A in Copal No. 1 Shutter, 58mm Filters, 475g
    360mm f6.3 Fujinon-W in Copal No. 3 Shutter, 86mm Filters, 1420g
    360mm F6.5 Nikkor-W in Copal No. 3 Shutter, 95mm Filters, 1420g
    360mm f6.8 APO Symmar in Copal No. 3 Shutter, 112mm Filters, 1350g



    Kerry

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