Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,749   Posts: 1,483,778   Online: 799
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Central Texas
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    67
    Hello,
    I recently purchased one of these lenses in a barrel and have put it into a Copal #3 shutter(direct fit). It seems that somewhere I saw a posting about the spacers that are between the lens groups when in the barrel, and that they should be taken out if mounted in a shutter for general photos rather than copy work. Does anyone know if this is correct??
    huh?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    I have always heard that the element spacing distance must be maintained when mounting a barrel mount lens into a shutter.
    Art is a step from what is obvious and well-known toward what is arcane and concealed.

    Visit my website at http://www.donaldmillerphotography.com

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Central Texas
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    67
    You are certainly right if the lens in a barrel was originally meant to be used in general view camera work. But this lens started life as a process lens, with much closer work habits, and it had three spacers in it. Does the rule still apply for process lenses being required to work at further distances than they are used to?
    huh?

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    747
    I'm sure you could improve things with adjusting the lens. The question is how much and do you risk more damage then you gain? I've got a small collection of process lenses. Well it feels like a collection. They all seem to work just fine at infinity. My rule is try it first. You might find it just fine.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    I have heard that most lenses that were designed for process work will work perfectly well at infinity if they are stopped down sufficiently. I am not an optical engineer but this is what I have heard over the years.
    Art is a step from what is obvious and well-known toward what is arcane and concealed.

    Visit my website at http://www.donaldmillerphotography.com

  6. #6
    lee
    lee is offline
    lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth TX
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,913
    Images
    8
    David,

    I have a set of the same lenses ie: 150 210 and 300 that I took off a vertical process camera last year some time. I seem to remember that the camera was a DS America process camera. Try it out without the spacers and let us know the results. I have a 210 g-claron and a 305 g-claron and they don't have spacers in them. They are in a Copal #1. They( the g-clarons) are as sharp as any lens I have owned.\

    lee/c

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Central Texas
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    67
    Hey ya'll, thanks for your input. I too have a number of process lenses that I use on a regular basis. This was the first time that I actually took one out of the barrel and put it into a shutter. The lens that was in the shutter has problems passing light properly. so I thought that I would try the Konica in that shutter. When I took it apart it kinda caught me off gaurd with the spacers.
    huh?

  8. #8
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by David Vickery
    The lens that was in the shutter has problems passing light properly. so I thought that I would try the Konica in that shutter. When I took it apart it kinda caught me off gaurd with the spacers.
    I'm trying to envision this. When you speak of "spacers between groups" are you refering to the internal locations of the single elements or cemented "pairs/ triples" of lens elements - commonly called "groups"?; or are you referring to a removable "section", used to change focal length - as in "convertable" lenses?

    First, the caveat: "I dunno ... anything is possible." Without some indication of the construction of the lens, I'd have to make that answer.
    Second, having spent some amount of time working in optical qaulity control and observing problems from spacer errors - defective (out-of-tolerance sizes; wrong ones installed ...) I would say that there would be very little chance of improving the performance of any lens by modifying group placement. If it does, I would be the firt instance I've every heard about.

    Give it a shot. Let me know what the results are.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    747
    Didn't the shutter mounted Artars come spaced differently ?

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Central Texas
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    67
    Okay, I see your points about groups and such. I am only talking about removing the front half of the lens from the barrel and the rear half from the barrel(not taking those apart any furthur). I put these into the Copal #3 shutter (direct fit) with out spacers and the image looks good on the ground glass, but I have not made any exposures yet. Probably for contact printing I will never notice any difference regardless of whether I use the spacers or not. But I may at some point want to use this lens for 4x5 color, so I was thinking that if this lens can be optomized for infinity work then I should try to do that.??.
    huh?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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