Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,895   Posts: 1,520,945   Online: 919
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29
  1. #11

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Johannesburg, South Africa
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Grant View Post
    I have seen photos of a number of these lenses and the serial numbers all seem to start 11000. Mine is 11020 - maybe that means it's the 20th one made? What is the serial number on yours?
    The Serial number on my 37mm is 10619, so I don't think yours was the 20th one made, unfortunately :-)

  2. #12
    Pumalite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Here & Now
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,078
    Fantastic lens. Top of the morning!
    " A loving and caring heart is the beginning of all knowledge " ~ Thomas Carlyle ~

  3. #13

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Johannesburg, South Africa
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    228
    Two recent-ish prints from this lens (12x16in), in both cases trying very hard to conceal the fish-eye distortion. The more I use this lens, the more I realise how extremely "natural" this kind of distortion is, even for interiour architecture. In many ways, I prefer this to the stretched corners of an ultra-ultra-wide (think 110º or more) rectilinear lens.


    (Mamiya RB67, Sekor-C 37mm, Ilford Pan F at ISO32)


    (Mamiya RB67, Sekor-C 37mm, Ilford Pan F at ISO32)

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,734
    I'll give an arm and a leg for that lens.

    Jeff

  5. #15
    fmajor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    259
    The real question, Jeff, is *whose* "arm and a leg for that lens"? ;-)

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,734
    Quote Originally Posted by fmajor View Post
    The real question, Jeff, is *whose* "arm and a leg for that lens"? ;-)
    I know what you mean, I don't really care I just love to have that lens!

    Jeff

  7. #17
    NJS
    NJS is offline
    NJS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    125
    anyone compared it to Pentax67 35mm fisheye?

  8. #18

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Johannesburg, South Africa
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by NJS View Post
    anyone compared it to Pentax67 35mm fisheye?
    I'd venture a guess that very few will be lucky to own more than 6x7cm fisheye :-)

    The focal length difference is interesting: The Mamiya RB67 is actually an 8x8cm camera, and all the RB lenses cover (at least) this format. This is probably why they went with a slightly longer focal length (37mm) for the 180-degree fisheye in this format, possibly allowing a bit of corner clipping if you're one of the few people shooting 6x8cm in an RB67.

    I'd love to participate in a comparative test - who has a Pentax 35mm? And unfortunately I'm in South Africa :-(

  9. #19
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,551
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Grant View Post
    A filter needs to be used at all times or the lens won't quite focus to infinity.
    I don't understand this. Could you explain it?


    Steve.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Johannesburg, South Africa
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    I don't understand this. Could you explain it?
    Steve.
    If I may jump in here - as you probably know, the filters for the 37mm screw in at the rear of the lens (impossible to have flat filters in front of a fisheye lens). See attached lens diagram.

    As far as I understand, the optical design of the lens was calculated to take into account the presence of a flat element at the rear (the filter), and if this is not present, it slightly changes the paths of the rays as they travel through the lens, causing them to converge at a slightly different point (in front of the film surface), hence the impossibility of achieving infinity focus. I do believe it's very slight, though (never bothered to waste a frame of 6x7cm film to see the effect) - almost looks in focus through the viewfinder.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	C-37mm-f4.51.jpg 
Views:	18 
Size:	85.3 KB 
ID:	42596

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