Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,930   Posts: 1,556,904   Online: 927
      
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678910
Results 91 to 97 of 97
  1. #91
    Dave Wooten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Vegas/mysterious mohave co. az, Big Pine Key Fla.
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    2,718
    Images
    20
    Thanks for these updates Mike,

    How limited are you with DOF when wide open...seem like that could be a problem when using camera movements and not being sharp when stopping down, or am I missing something....having one lens for three focal lengths at 7 x 17 certainly gets my attention.....at what F stop does the diffraction become noticable?

  2. #92
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,351
    Images
    20
    Yes, I'm also more interested if the 311mm configuration can cover 11x14".
    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

  3. #93
    Dave Wooten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Vegas/mysterious mohave co. az, Big Pine Key Fla.
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    2,718
    Images
    20
    I'm thinking it would cover 11 x 14 if it adequately covers 7 x 17 @ 480mm circle?

  4. #94
    mikewhi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Redmond, WA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    808
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
    Yes, I'm also more interested if the 311mm configuration can cover 11x14".
    I know the Cook web-site lists the following regarding coverage:

    1)Maximum Useable Image Circle at 10 Feet and Less(Use Aperture) of 420mm @ f\16.

    2) Maximun Useable Image Circle of 381 deg @ f\16. Angle of View of 63 deg @ f\16.

    Minimum image circle for 11x14 seems to be 455mm. All I can tell you is that the 311 configuration covered 7x17 with pretty extreme front rise. I used the technique of tiltling the tripod back and straightening the standards because I could not reach the front standard and keep my eye on the groundglass at the same time.

    I will be working with the 8x10 and the XVa outside tomorrow and I'll check to see how much excess covering power there is with the 311 configuration. I'd assume Cooke is conservative with their specs above and that it may well cover 11x14, but we'll see.

    -Mike

  5. #95
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,351
    Images
    20
    Thanks, Mike. Going way back to the beginning of this thread, the real question to me is whether it would be better to have a suite of all 3 Fujinon-C lenses (300, 450, 600) or the Cooke, which are about the same price, considering that I'd be purchasing a shutter as well for the Cooke. The Fujinon-C 300 does not cover 11x14", but it would be handy to have a compact 300 for other formats.

    The focal length I really need is a 600 for 11x14", but the possibility of modernizing all my long focal length lenses around there is kind of interesting to me. I have a 12" Dagor that can cover 11x14", but only if I use it in barrel or have it remounted in a shutter--I currently use it front mounted on an Ilex 5, which is fine for 8x10", but vignettes on 11x14".
    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

  6. #96
    mikewhi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Redmond, WA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    808
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
    Thanks, Mike. Going way back to the beginning of this thread, the real question to me is whether it would be better to have a suite of all 3 Fujinon-C lenses (300, 450, 600) or the Cooke, which are about the same price, considering that I'd be purchasing a shutter as well for the Cooke. The Fujinon-C 300 does not cover 11x14", but it would be handy to have a compact 300 for other formats.

    The focal length I really need is a 600 for 11x14", but the possibility of modernizing all my long focal length lenses around there is kind of interesting to me. I have a 12" Dagor that can cover 11x14", but only if I use it in barrel or have it remounted in a shutter--I currently use it front mounted on an Ilex 5, which is fine for 8x10", but vignettes on 11x14".
    As far as I can tell, all 3 focal lengths in the Xva will cover 11x14. I will know more tomorrow, but the largest format I have with me is 7x17. I can check that they all 3 cover th 17" dimension and check the movements. The Canham back slides back and forth a long ways so I should reach the limit of the lens at infinity and maybe closer (but not further<g>).

    I guess you'll have to decide what your priorities are. If weight does not matter and you want the best performance at each flocal length and you plan on elarging, I'd go with the seperate lenses. If you plan on contact printing, then the extra performance of the seperate lenses is negated - the XVa will make very nice contact prints at all focal lengths. There is a lot to be said about the weight savings, if that is a concern. If you only work out of the car, I guess it doesn't matter what the lenses weigh.

    If coverage is the deciding factor, charts can help but apparently the Cooke chars are too conservative based on my experience with the 305 G-Claron and the 311 configuration on the XVa.

    So, if you plan on enlarging and if weight does not matter and the seperate lenses more than cover your largest format, stick with them. If weight and compactness matter and you are going to contact print, the XVa seems like an ideal lens. The question just remains if it covers 11x4 adequately.

    One person you can ask is Clive Russ (www.cliveruss.com). I dealt with him personally and via e-mail to buy my lens. He got the first prototype from Cooke and knows the lens intimately. He can advise you about it's applicability on 11x14. You might mention to him what I said about the 7x17. He is a good man, a real gentleman and good to do business with. I'd suggest buying one from him if you decide to get one.

    Take care.

    -Mike

  7. #97
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,351
    Images
    20
    Thanks, Mike. I don't work out of the car primarily (I don't even own one), but weight isn't the issue with this particular choice, given that either combination would probably be lighter than or similar to my current arrangement. This is mainly for 8x10" and 11x14", which I contact print, but I might occasionally want to be able to use them on smaller formats. Right now, I'd say the coverage of the 311 would tip the scales.
    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

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678910


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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