Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,986   Posts: 1,524,002   Online: 860
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31
  1. #11
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,021
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  2. #12
    darkosaric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,540
    I consider lens to be unique and/or legendary between other reasons also is when you can get result that other lenses can not give you. I don't do large format (yet – but will do), but looking at many LF photos – no lens in medium or small format can give similar prints.
    So from my perspective all large format lenses are unique

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bombay, NY
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    47
    Hmmm, unique---well on the big buck side are the Pinkham and Smith, the Portland and the Struss. On the relatively cheap side are the Turner-Reich and Wollensak Raptars. In those days every lens grinding company had their own idea of what a lens should do, So we have many different signatures in the rendering of a picture.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    76

    But.....

    A lot of legendary work has been produced using non-legendary lenses.
    The magic ingredient is NOT a particular piece of glass, but rather the eye and execution by the shooter.
    I will confess to a little "Optical Snobbery, I own and use some Konica Hexanons that produce razor sharp
    images. And, I am conducting some tests using high dollar enlarging lenses on a Speed Graphic.

  5. #15
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,250
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    435
    In the soft focus range - Verito, Vesta, Vitax, Cooke, Plasticca, Kodak Portrait, Dallmeyer, really too many to concisely list.

    Then there's Heliars, Kodak Commercial Ektars, Goerz Dagors, Zeiss Protars...

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Jackson. MS, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    224
    I ADORED my 16.5" RD Apo-Artar. I don't think it was on account of the hype. Narrow coverage, though.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,325
    Quote Originally Posted by ntenny View Post
    I'm interested in this subject too, though as an obligate contact printer I don't quite know *why* I care, given that I could probably get away with using meniscus lenses ground from expired bologna.

    Petzvals I think I understand; people seem to use them for shallow DOF with that appealing "swirly" look and a low-contrast "looks like a really old photo" character. But there are other lenses where I know the name but don't know what's special about them.

    As one example, what's the big exciting thing about "red dot" Artars?

    -NT
    "Red Dot" means it's coated, the earlier (1904 to mid/late 1940s) were not coated. There were some coated Artars without the dot, too. With 6 internal surfaces, they need coatings. A coated Artar is very sharp, has excellent tonality, and is apochromatically corrected - meaning it brings the three colors red, green, and blue to the same plane of focus. They were made in focal lengths up to 70". But, they're slow and cover less than many other lenses, Goerz said that an 8 1/4" was the shortest to cover 4x5, and that without movements.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,325
    Quote Originally Posted by premortho View Post
    Hmmm, unique---well on the big buck side are the Pinkham and Smith, the Portland and the Struss. On the relatively cheap side are the Turner-Reich and Wollensak Raptars. In those days every lens grinding company had their own idea of what a lens should do, So we have many different signatures in the rendering of a picture.
    "Raptar" was what Wollensak called their coated lenses after WWII, they are of many types and some were identical to the prewar (uncoated) Velostigmats. The Turner-Reich lenses were designed around the turn of the last century, primarily to get around the patents covering the Protar convertibles.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,329
    Quote Originally Posted by darkosaric View Post
    So from my perspective all large format lenses are unique
    Eh? Wot? Many of them are as the proverbial peas in the proverbial pods.

    For example, quality control issues aside, an f/6.3 tessar type is an f/6.3 tessar type is an f/6.3 tessar type. None of them is in any of the lists of legendary lenses I've seen. Best tessar type, perhaps too common.

    Lists of legendary lenses can be very strange. For example, include Apo-Artars, exclude Apo-Nikkors (symmetrical type), Apo-Ronars and Repro-Clarons. All peas in a pod. Makes no sense.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm View Post
    Eh? Wot? Many of them are as the proverbial peas in the proverbial pods.

    For example, quality control issues aside, an f/6.3 tessar type is an f/6.3 tessar type is an f/6.3 tessar type. None of them is in any of the lists of legendary lenses I've seen. Best tessar type, perhaps too common.

    Lists of legendary lenses can be very strange. For example, include Apo-Artars, exclude Apo-Nikkors (symmetrical type), Apo-Ronars and Repro-Clarons. All peas in a pod. Makes no sense.
    Yes, there's a huge amount of B.S. regarding Goerz lenses, the Dagor in particular but it spills over onto the Artars. I have an uncoated Eastman process lens, it's every bit the equal of an uncoated Artar - not much coverage, very very sharp, and a veritable flare machine.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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