Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,926   Posts: 1,585,122   Online: 848
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11
    MurrayMinchin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Coast, BC, Canada
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    4,196
    Images
    15
    Hi there Deniz...it's a small world!

    I just got a phone call from my sister-in-law who just met you either in Vancouver or at Long Beach (not sure where she phoned from) and found out you're an APUG'er and a LF photographer of moss in trees just like me.

    If I'm ever heading south I'll get in touch with you and all the other south coast APUG'ers for a meal

    Murray
    _________________________________________
    Note to self: Turn your negatives into positives.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by Deniz
    "... Here she is on the camera..."
    Suh-WEEEEET!

  3. #13
    noseoil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Tucson
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,898
    Images
    17
    Deniz, I got a similar lens (won't quote you what I paid, but it was more than the $40 you paid) and have it mounted in front of an old Packard shutter as well. What is really fun is this lens and a 4x5 reducing back for my 8x10 camera. I had thought about taking a ring off of a Nikon 35mm lens and mounting my FM body to the 8x10 at some point. Who knows, might do it some day, but the 35mm is easier to carry than the 8x10, so it hasn't happened yet.

    Congratulations on a sweet deal. Check into a Packard shutter, they still work very well and are easy to mount and use. tim

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Deniz
    It is going to be hard to afford filters for the beast. 86mm filters..
    i may get away with a step down ring and use my 77mm filters since not all of that 86mm is glass on the front element.

    Here she is on the camera..
    Looking good Deniz!

    I have one of these 480mm Nikkors that I use on my 8x10 Wehman (with a Sock Shutter).
    My lens has a filter (and Waterhouse stop) insertion slot in the lens barrel. I have a set of Nikon filter slips and I use gel filters in them - a simple solution to the filter problem.
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,569
    Hi, Tom. If you'll take a look in the DIY cameras thread, you'll find a link to an image of my tandem Graphics (2x3 Pacemaker Speed behind a Century) with a 480/9 Apo Nikkor front-mounted on a #1. Its been a while since I did the calculations, but I'm pretty sure the lens will cover 4x5 with some movements and will cover 8x10 with none for sure, perhaps a little more than none, front mounted on a #1.

    Yeah, I envy Deniz for the low price he paid for his 480. My adapter for front mounting cost more than my lens.

    Cheers,

    Dan

  6. #16
    Jeremy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,767
    Images
    56
    Maybe you guys congratulating Deniz on his cheap find should look at the date this thread was originally started... November 2004! Not to spoil the fun, though... I love hearing about the ways people mount these big lenses/shutters on their cameras.
    Let's see what I've got in the magic trash can for Mateo!

    blog
    website

  7. #17
    Mongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    960
    Dan...I'm not sure what you mean by "front-mounted on a #1"...but I get plenty of movements using my 480/9 on 8x10 with a Packard shutter. (I'm not sure of the shutter size as I got it used, but the opening is a bit larger than the rear element of the Nikkor.)

    The circle of illumination on the lens is significantly larger than the circle of good definition, but I have to tie my C1 up into a real pretzel to get beyond the usable image.

    <-- I just realized that my avatar is a picture of me using the 480/9 on the C1.

    Be well.
    Dave

    (I reserve the right to respond in 2006, since I have a post in the thread from 2004. )
    Film is cheap. Opportunities are priceless.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongo
    Dan...I'm not sure what you mean by "front-mounted on a #1"...but I get plenty of movements using my 480/9 on 8x10 with a Packard shutter. (I'm not sure of the shutter size as I got it used, but the opening is a bit larger than the rear element of the Nikkor.)

    The circle of illumination on the lens is significantly larger than the circle of good definition, but I have to tie my C1 up into a real pretzel to get beyond the usable image.

    <-- I just realized that my avatar is a picture of me using the 480/9 on the C1.

    Be well.
    Dave

    (I reserve the right to respond in 2006, since I have a post in the thread from 2004. )
    Um, Dave, my 480 screws into a cup-shaped adapter that screws into a #1 shutter. The #1's maximum aperture is 30 mm so in principle it should vignette the cone of rays the lens projects. Or, at any rate, cut off the outer part of the cone. Covers 2x3 very well as mounted, though, and I've calculated that it will cover somewhat larger formats too.

  9. #19
    Mongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    960
    Thanks for the information Dan. Even though I spent time looking over your double-Graphic setup when you first posted the pictures (out of sheer admiration...I still love that setup!) I somehow missed that you were using a #1 shutter. The number 1 should cut off a good bit of the image circle.

    I can't find the stats for the 480mm right now, but the 455mm (same construction) covers 385mm at infinity. I would guess that the 480mm gets you around 400mm (based on extrapolating the coverage for a number of the APO-Nikkor f/9 process lenses).

    Be well.
    Dave
    Film is cheap. Opportunities are priceless.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongo
    Thanks for the information Dan. Even though I spent time looking over your double-Graphic setup when you first posted the pictures (out of sheer admiration...I still love that setup!) I somehow missed that you were using a #1 shutter. The number 1 should cut off a good bit of the image circle.

    I can't find the stats for the 480mm right now, but the 455mm (same construction) covers 385mm at infinity. I would guess that the 480mm gets you around 400mm (based on extrapolating the coverage for a number of the APO-Nikkor f/9 process lenses).

    Be well.
    Dave
    Dave, I get no vignetting on 2x3 with the 480. For me, the big vignetting surprise is that my tiny little 150/9 Apo Ronar doesn't when mounted on an adapter to some enlarger or other that fits the cup-shaped adapter for my 210/9 GRII. You'd think that with the lens so far in front of the shutter it would vignette at infinity on 2x3, but it doesn't.

    In practice, the apparently reasonable model I use to decide whether vignetting is a risk is quite conservative, i.e., I get more coverage than it predicts. The model is basically similar triangles; circle covered is (lens' exit pupil to film distance)*((diameter of limiting obstruction)/(lens' exit pupil to limiting obstruction distance)). My tandem rig has two possible limiting obstructions, the #1 shutter's diaphragm (30 mm diameter) and the rear camera's front standard (48 mm diameter). For 2x3 its the rear camera's front standard that bites.

    I think I've got the 480 Apo Nikkor's specs at home. IIRC, you're right, it covers 400 mm at infinity. Much more than I can use ...

    And now you know most of my barrel lenses that can be front-mounted are front-mounted.

    Cheers,

    Dan

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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