Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,732   Posts: 1,515,273   Online: 796
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,322
    Images
    87
    Why would anyone yell at you?
    If you like the result, and your sitters like the result, nothing else matters.

    There is the chance that someone will say that the MTF of the zillimar f 4.5 lens is much better than that of the fomar f 3.141 but the bokah of the fomar is better when it's stopped down to f/22.3, even though the zillimar has 3 millimeters more coverage. But you really can't compare either of them to the catmars made between 1951 and 1953, those were really magic, and had a fantastic presence with great but subdued highlights and the best shadow detail. EXEPT if you compare any of them to the 1932 bockmar 215.6 mm.


  2. #12
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,881
    Images
    6
    Go on Ebay one in a while. I found this recently but didn't bid.

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/270871331328...84.m1438.l2649

  3. #13
    Dan Quan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    401
    Quote Originally Posted by bdial View Post
    Why would anyone yell at you?
    If you like the result, and your sitters like the result, nothing else matters.

    There is the chance that someone will say that the MTF of the zillimar f 4.5 lens is much better than that of the fomar f 3.141 but the bokah of the fomar is better when it's stopped down to f/22.3, even though the zillimar has 3 millimeters more coverage. But you really can't compare either of them to the catmars made between 1951 and 1953, those were really magic, and had a fantastic presence with great but subdued highlights and the best shadow detail. EXEPT if you compare any of them to the 1932 bockmar 215.6 mm.

    DanQuan.com
    stand in the place where you are

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    NW Chicagoland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    551
    Images
    1
    Don't forget to put a WTB in the APUG classified ads. And the large format forum ads if you belong and have served your time period. A nice cheap 210 is the Rodenstock Geronar f6.8 or the similar Caltar version. Modern copal shutter and multicoated. Should be able to get one for around $175 in mint shape.

  5. #15
    Jim Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rural NW Missouri
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,769
    The picture of KEH's Symmar-S may show odd reflections around the edge of the optics or perhaps element seperation. That probably should be resolved before buying it. I still use an inexpensive Caltar-S with edge seperations at small apertures with no problem, but such a condition may well worsen.

    Over many years my most used lens on a 4x5 has been the Kodak Ektar f/7.7. 203mm. It might not do as well for those wide open portraits, though.

  6. #16
    jp498's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,430
    Images
    73
    I've got two lenses with bent filter rings. I got them cheap because of that, and they work fine. ymmv of course.

    I've got a 203mm optar with works great and is small (like fold up in the press camera sized). Also have a nikkor 210/5.6 which is like the plasmats you've suggested. Lots of options for not much money; none of them are rare or inherently bad. I've also got a 210/4.5 (fujinar) tessar, which is nice for portraits and anything else but brighter than the optar, and I've got a 210mm triplet (meyer trioplan, no shutter)), which is nice for portraits and subjectively nice for landscapes and it's not super crisp wide open. Then I've got the reinhold wollaston 190mm meniscus (no shutter) which wouldn't interest the sharp focus people. So there are lots of options besides the plasmats for lenses in this range.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    164
    Hello Connor;
    Which Sinar do you have? Many of these used a barrel lens and the shutter attached to the rear of the lens and board. I have seen many of these go for cheap on the _bay site. Not a mainstream item so the price reduction. Good luck, Steven.

  8. #18
    wy2l's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Junction Meadow
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    88
    Please reconsider purchasing damaged goods. It has been my experience that it is better to scrape together the extra dollars and buy the better quality.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    14
    I certainly understand the difference in opinions as far as optical quality goes. I am not concerned with the small details that set lenses apart, as well as their prices. It will be a long time before I start to have duplicates of lenses because one is better suited to portraits of males and the other females. All I need is a lens that is sharp (and that wasn't meant to be interpreted as clinically sharp, so my apologies there) and functional but also cheap. If someone finds the bokeh slightly less appealing than another lens, good! Sell it to me as a result.

    It's a Sinar F, Steven.

    I am definitely moving away from buying lenses with filter damage. I think you are right there.

    I created a WTB thread on LFF and will here too. I've already received a few offers.

  10. #20
    darinwc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,037
    Images
    157
    one note: I like the Sironars over the Symmars because the Sironars use a smaller filter ring: 67mm and that is the same as my 90mm f8 super angulon. Also they are smaller and lighter because of it. (note the convertible symmar has a much smaller barrel)

    Regarding the filter rings: They use pretty thick metal for the barrels and filter rings of these lenses. They are very hard to bend back to circular. That said, they seem easy to dent. However, I've shot with some pretty f**ked up lenses and had really good results. One of my best shots (and sharpest btw) was taken with a 90mm super angulon with a cracked rear element.

    So I guess I would recommend against a lens with a dented front filter ring. KEH did not mention which ring was dented. Maybe if you ask they will tell you. Good 210mm lenses are plentiful. For 4x5, any of the plasmats are your best bet. (Symmar, Sironar, Sinaron, caltar ii-s or ii-n, fujinon, nikkor)
    Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.

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