Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,929   Posts: 1,585,227   Online: 816
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28
  1. #11
    bmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,156
    Images
    9
    Hey guys thanks for the info. I am currently using mainly RB67s and an old 4X5 B&J Orbit. My most used focal length is usually the normal lens on each, and about 40% mild telephoto. I'll check out the lenses everyone suggested. I am especially interested in the tripple convertables.

    Brian
    hi!

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Berkeley, Ca.
    Posts
    178
    Good deal Brian...now you're a REAL LF user lol

    Good lead on that Igor's Camera Exchange John. Alot of good used gear but still no luck on a 150 Componon S. But 'only' $750 for a 8x10 Deardorff...humm....
    Thanks for the lead.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    north Sonoma County Coast - California
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    7
    Congratulations ... on the 8x10

    One thought on the older Turner Reich Triple Convertible lenses. The cement used in gluing elements often starts to deteriorate around the edges. Commonly called separation. Depending on how much there is, it can influence lens performance.

    I bought a 12/19/25 TR Triple Convertible on EB** and decided I was unhappy with its performance and esthetically - it looked ugly. I sent it in to SKGrimes to be disassembled and recemented with modern materials. For contact printing it works great and it looks great. But, of course, having it repaired wasn't cheap, and put me over budget. But, its really not about $$ is it?

    Another issue on these older lenses is the shutter. Mine came in a Betax which also required some TLC to get going. Again, worth it to get it to do the basics.

    Moral of the story, don't jump on the first lens you see, ask about the specific condition and separation. One person's 'a little separation' may be more than you thought 'a little' should be.


  4. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Walnut Creek, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    558
    Images
    14
    Congrats on the 8x10, but a word of warning, wait until addiction sets in.

    My 8x10 is a restored Seneca City View made sometime in the early 1900's. I found her in a junk (er antique0 store in Burlington VT and paid the grand sum of $60.00. Like yours it came without a lens or lensboard.

    I have a neighbour who helped drill a couple of plywood panels and they worked fine. My first lens was a process 14" process lens I picked up on Ebay for a song. Stopped down to f45 and used a black hat as a shutter. used Arista (Ilford) 125. and the results were awesome.

    I have acquired a 12" Kodak Commercial Ektar and that is a great lens and using an adaptor plate I can used it on my 4x5 Wista and 5x7 Agfa. I also picked up a 10" Ilex Paragon at a local camera fair for $70 and I am waiting for the SK Grimes people to return the CLA'ed Betax No. 5 shutter.

    So the moral is if you are patient and shop around you can get going for a reasonable price. The only concession I made was to get a couple of decent film holders and they cost me $60 a piece.

    So have fun....


    Mike

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Berkeley, Ca.
    Posts
    178
    How come all you guys are suggesting older lenses?
    Cost or desired effect? Surely the newer styled but dated
    modern lenses are either sharper or have more contrast I'd think. Anyway, just curious.

  6. #16
    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
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (chrisl @ May 14 2003, 09:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> How come all you guys are suggesting older lenses?
    Cost or desired effect? Surely the newer styled but dated
    modern lenses are either sharper or have more contrast I&#39;d think. Anyway, just curious. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    It&#39;s because we&#39;re all old, and still broke from buying the lenses when they were new

    Honestly, when the negative is 8x10" the difference in resolution betwen an old triple convertible and a brand new aspheric supermulticoated lens is - barely noticeable. Something in between - like my 300mm Xenar, 1960&#39;s, single coated - will be all but indistinguishable from a new lens.

    Many of us seem to leave the new lenses to those who can write them off against taxes or something, and then we buy the old lenses off them when something new comes out. Keeps everybody happy&#33;
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  7. #17
    bmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,156
    Images
    9
    LOL&#33; It&#39;s probably because they figure a guy like me with a growning family, and a 100 year old camera probably can&#39;t afford one of the newer lenses... and its true&#33;
    hi!

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    747
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (chrisl @ May 15 2003, 01:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> How come all you guys are suggesting older lenses?
    Cost or desired effect? Surely the newer styled but dated
    modern lenses are either sharper or have more contrast I&#39;d think. Anyway, just curious. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    1) If they were good enough for Adams who am I to disagree?-))

    cruise this website.

    http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/results.html

    At a small enough aperture you&#39;ll be hard pressed to tell the difference between a coke bottle and the latest most modern item.

    I think the new lenses have better coating. But the designs need that coating more then older designs.

    2) He asked for an inexpensive barell lens and for once we answered the question asked and not the one we hoped he&#39;d asked?-))

  9. #19
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,487
    Images
    20
    Robert&#39;s answers speak for me as well. Mainly, Brian asked about less costly lenses, and he&#39;s planning to contact print, so the older lenses will do fine.

    Now that I have a few 1960-70s era lenses for my 4x5", which I enlarge, I&#39;m finding that in general I do prefer the more modern lenses for that format, because the older lenses weren&#39;t really designed to bear much enlargement and standards were just different then, but I do prefer the look of an 8x10" or 11x14" contact print made with one of my old Dagors or Heliars to an enlargement from a 4x5" neg made with a more modern lens.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  10. #20
    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
    On the subject of older lenses, I&#39;m off to the darkroom (oh joy&#33 to see how a 1934 Voigtländer Heliar fares when enlarging a 9x12cm to 8x10"...

    I already know what 1960s Xenars, APO-Lanthars, Symmars and Angulons can do, as well as my newest lens: 1972 121mm Super-Angulon.

    So far, I see no need to "upgrade" my lenses.
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

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