Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,523   Posts: 1,572,331   Online: 974
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,661
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
    The first electronic calculator I encountered was an English machine, the ANITA.
    I actually had one of these! It didn't work though. It was given to my when I was about ten as I used to like taking things apart then (still do).


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Ole
    ... I'll have to put my 135/3.5 "Typ D" to the test some day - yet another case of the Vade Mecum being completely wrong...
    Hey, Ole, the VM says "Xenar Type D f3.5 There seems to have been an uncemented 3-glass Xenar for Portrait work, of excellent quality and able to stand comparison with the 4-glass. This type was for small cameras only." Where were they wrong?

    I ask in part because there's been a lot of VM-bashing here lately. I agree that its incomplete, inconsistent, sometimes incorrect, often infuriating, but still find it invaluable. I've yet to find a better alternative. Suggestions?

    Cheers,

    Dan

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    768
    Images
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
    Hey, Ole, the VM says "Xenar Type D f3.5 There seems to have been an uncemented 3-glass Xenar for Portrait work, of excellent quality and able to stand comparison with the 4-glass. This type was for small cameras only." Where were they wrong?
    Dan, what do they mean under three-glass scheme - a Cooke's triplet, I think? A positive front lens, a negative middle and a positive back, right? If the lens lacks any cemented elements, why should it be called Xenar, then?

    Zhenya

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,508
    Zhenya, "Xenar" is a trade name. Schneider can attach it to anything they want, including ashtrays.

    There's also an S-Xenar, five elements in four groups, rather like a tessar but with the first singlet replaced by, IIRC, two meniscii. I have a similar mystery lens, a 75/2.8 sold as an enlarging lens and with no trade or maker's name anywhere on it.

    Here's another example. Early G-Clarons are 6/2 double anastigmats. Slow narrow-angle Dagors, in all but name. Later G-Clarons are 6/4 plasmats.

    Cheers,

    Dan

  5. #15
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,282
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
    Hey, Ole, the VM says "Xenar Type D f3.5 There seems to have been an uncemented 3-glass Xenar for Portrait work, of excellent quality and able to stand comparison with the 4-glass. This type was for small cameras only." Where were they wrong?

    I ask in part because there's been a lot of VM-bashing here lately. I agree that its incomplete, inconsistent, sometimes incorrect, often infuriating, but still find it invaluable. I've yet to find a better alternative. Suggestions?

    Cheers,

    Dan

    The VM is just as you said - "incomplete, inconsistent, sometimes incorrect, often infuriating, but still invaluable".

    The "Typ D" is a four-element "tessary" lens, but the rear group has negative focal length. So it's somewhat similar to a Tessar, but with radically different groups - if that makes any sense at all?

    Which reminds me - even on English lenses, the VM isn't always correct: My "Ross Cabinet No.2" is an f:4 Petzval with about 12" focal length (yes, a big heavy thing), not a RR...
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    768
    Images
    36
    Oh right, that's it - I forgot about those Western plutocrats and their habits In Russia, whatever lenss was made, it was given a name according to its optical scheme... sometimes it was something like RO or OKS, so no one knew what should it be

    Cheers,
    Zhenya

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
    Zhenya, "Xenar" is a trade name. Schneider can attach it to anything they want, including ashtrays.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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