| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
egoldste
Joined: 01 Jan 2005
Posts: 9
Location: New England, USA
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2005 7:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Apparently there is some dispute as to whether this can be done and still achieve infinity focus.
Can I hear from someone who has done this successfully who can give me some guidance? Also, which 65s will physically fit on the camera, which are top performers, what is the best way to handle rangefinder calibration, fitting a viewfinder, etc etc etc
If this is all covered somewhere that I am not finding, I'd appreciate a point in the right direction. Thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2144
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2005 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2005-01-01 11:59, egoldste wrote:
Apparently there is some dispute as to whether this can be done and still achieve infinity focus.
Can I hear from someone who has done this successfully who can give me some guidance? Also, which 65s will physically fit on the camera, which are top performers, what is the best way to handle rangefinder calibration, fitting a viewfinder, etc etc etc
If this is all covered somewhere that I am not finding, I'd appreciate a point in the right direction. Thank you.
|
I don't see why you think there's a dispute about this. Many of us have reported here on the question.
Also, what does the camera's back have to do with it? Graphic, Graflex, Graflok all hold the film plane in the same place.
Short answer, the 65/5.6 and 65/8 Schneider Super Angulons and 65/8 Ilex Acugon are known to focus to infinity on 2x3 Pacemaker Speeds. I have a 65 Acugon and it works just fine on my camera.
65/6.8 Angulon and Raptar/Optar will NOT make infinity on a 2x3 Speed. 2x3 Crown/Century yes, 2x3 Speed no.
Other lenses of the Super Angulon type, e.g., 65/4 Nikkor, 65 (forget the max relative aperture) Grandagon, ... should work on a 2x3 Speed too. The key measure is flange-to-film distance at infinity. The 2x3 Pacemaker Speed's minimum f-to-f is 2 7/16".
All SA type lenses are better than good enough. Don't worry about which of them is best, worry about which you can afford to buy in good order.
Don't try to use the rangefinder. In use, I focus on the ground glass when shooting from a tripod. When shooting hand-held, I prefocus on the GG, compose crudely using the tubular viewfinder with a clip-on w/a adapter. Think zone or hyperfocal focusing.
FWIW, the shortest lens I know of that will make infinity on a 2x3 Speed is a 1.75"/2.8 Elcan. Yes, 44 mm. I haven't shot with mine yet, so can't say whether it really covers 2.25" x 3.25". I can say that there's recognizable inage in the corners, can't say whether it is sharp enough.
Good luck, read the FAQs,
Dan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
egoldste
Joined: 01 Jan 2005
Posts: 9
Location: New England, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2005 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you for your reply. Again, if you can point me to the appropriate FAQ or section, I would appreciate it, as I did not see it after some searching...
I ask if this is possible because one of the FAQs I did come across disputes that it is, and reports different results from different users...
I mention back type because I will not be able to focus/compose via GG and use rollfilm easily, as I have a graphic spring back. Zone/hyperfocusing with a 65 mm lens is not the preferred mode for me... Can the Kalart be adjusted for a 65 or is this just not possible?
Also, some of the older Angulon types you mention are marginal performers and I would not bother if that was all that was useable. Apparently there are several options, which is good news...
Anyone else?
[ This Message was edited by: egoldste on 2005-01-01 15:17 ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2144
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2005-01-01 15:12, egoldste wrote:
Thank you for your reply. Again, if you can point me to the appropriate FAQ or section, I would appreciate it, as I did not see it after some searching...
I ask if this is possible because one of the FAQs I did come across disputes that it is, and reports different results from different users...
I mention back type because I will not be able to focus/compose via GG and use rollfilm easily, as I have a graphic spring back. Zone/hyperfocusing with a 65 mm lens is not the preferred mode for me... Can the Kalart be adjusted for a 65 or is this just not possible?
Also, some of the older Angulon types you mention are marginal performers and I would not bother if that was all that was useable. Apparently there are several options, which is good news...
Anyone else?
[ This Message was edited by: egoldste on 2005-01-01 15:17 ]
|
Go to the welcome page and work your way through the site map. While you're on the welcome page, look closely and you'll find the text string FAQ. It is a clickable link.
You have been misinformed. There is a slip-in type roll holder that can be used with Graphic backs. Look again. Hint: Adapt-A-Roll 620. I use them.
Read my first reply carefully. I was explicit that the 65/6.8 Angulon and 65/6.8 Raptar/Optar can NOT be used with your camera. These two lenses are quite different designs.
SUPER ANGULON types can be used on 2x3 Speeds. AFAIK, there are NO marginal Super Angulon type lenses, all are pretty good. Don't hit me with the 47/8 and 53/4, which get mixed reports. If I'm mistaken, please correct my misunderstanding. As I wrote, I have a 65/8 Ilex Acugon, it focuses to infinity on my 2x3 Speed, and is a very good lens in the same design family as the SA. If you don't know what it is, don't slander it. And I've had a 65/8 Raptar and know at first hand that it won't make infinity on a 2x3 Pacemaker Speed. End of discussion. As Packard's advertisement's used to say, "Ask the man who owns one."
I gave you the 2x3 Pacemaker Speed's minimum flange to film distance. Take the hint, pick a lens and ask its manufacturer for its flange to film distance at infinity. A simple arithmetic operation -- subtraction -- will tell you whether it will focus to infinity on a 2x3 Pacemaker Speed Graphic.
The Super Angulon and Angulon have nothing in common but manufacturer and the word Angulon. They are very different designs.
About preferred working mode. You are trying to use your camera in a way its maker never intended. It won't compromise, so you will have to. If you can't accept its limitations, get a more capable camera.
About Kalarts. I may be mistaken, but to the best of my knowledge a Kalart can't be adjusted to focus a 65 mm lens.
Yours with a hearty snarl, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
egoldste
Joined: 01 Jan 2005
Posts: 9
Location: New England, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok Dan... I got my questions answered... please read my posts carefully (never said anything about SA types, only Angulons which are a completely different design, basically the difference between a Dagor type and a Biogon type).
I know about the adapt-a-roll and it's modern equivalent from Calumet... these holders were never notorious for their film flatness. It would be more economical and yield better performance for me to simply convert to a graflok back but I am not interested in that option at this time...
Thanks for your hints (got them the first time but if you feel better repeating yourself that's fine) and the attitude and god knows what else... Best, Eric
[ This Message was edited by: egoldste on 2005-01-01 18:03 ]
[ This Message was edited by: egoldste on 2005-01-03 07:49 ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djon
Joined: 05 Nov 2004
Posts: 174
Location: New Mexico
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gents, be nice.
I used to have great results with a 47 Angulon on my Century...wish I could find another.
fwiw, I don't think one would gain any focusing accuracy advantage whatsoever with a rangefinder for 65...it'd literally be more accurate to mark the rails than to count on the rfdr.
As to Angulon Vs SAs, the usual argument for the former (other than price) is the mistaken belief that they allow more movement than the SA. The argument for the SAs is that they are distinctly sharper and DO offer more coverage per mm.
The only negatives to SAs that I know about directly are vignetted coverage (vanishes with the proper Schneider ND filter) and the price.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but be nice OK?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
egoldste
Joined: 01 Jan 2005
Posts: 9
Location: New England, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the reply and the civility...
I think the question of a rangefinder to focus a 65 on a 23 format depends upon what aperture you are shooting (with f/4 possible), how close you are shooting, and how much you are enlarging. I will likely put a double shoe on the Speed and use an aux rangefinder on one and a viewfinder on the other...
In terms of Angulons versus SAs, the Angulons were basically Protar/Holostigmat/Dagor types, cemented symetrical triplets. (Corrected copy... see below) The later Biogon/SA development of this type took the outside elements and seperated them, allowing for additional degrees of freedom and significantly higher order abberration correction.
The fall-off you describe is strictly speaking I believe not a function of vignetting or mechanical obstruction but rather of cos4. I am guessing that this would be less pronounced on a 65 than a 47 all things being equal.
Again, very much appreciate the sharing of experience... Thank you.
[ This Message was edited by: egoldste on 2005-01-02 18:50 ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2144
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2005-01-02 15:11, djon wrote:
Gents, be nice.
I used to have great results with a 47 Angulon on my Century...wish I could find another.
fwiw, I don't think one would gain any focusing accuracy advantage whatsoever with a rangefinder for 65...it'd literally be more accurate to mark the rails than to count on the rfdr.
As to Angulon Vs SAs, the usual argument for the former (other than price) is the mistaken belief that they allow more movement than the SA. The argument for the SAs is that they are distinctly sharper and DO offer more coverage per mm.
The only negatives to SAs that I know about directly are vignetted coverage (vanishes with the proper Schneider ND filter) and the price.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but be nice OK?
|
djon, the argument for 65/5.6 and 65/8 Super Angulons on 2x3 Speed Graphics is that they have longer back focus than the 65/8 Angulon. With luck and a following wind, a 65/6.8 Angulon will just barely make infinity on a 2x3 Pacemaker Speed with the bellows fully compressed, but this can't be counted on. The 65 SAs, on the other hand, will focus 8-9 mm through infinity on a 2x3 Pacemaker Speed.
If you have a 2x3 Speed and want to shoot a 65, you want a lens in the SA design family. Like, for example, my 65/8 Ilex Acugon.
About movements, according to Schneider the 65 SAs cover 155 mm (/ and 170 mm (/5.6), the 65/6.8 Angulon covers 100 mm. You want moves, focal length for focal length, you want an SA rather than an A. And the truth is, the 65/6.8 Angulon's coverage is pretty marginal for 2.25 x 3.25.
I shoot a 47/5.6 SA on my Century, and I agree with you. Great lens. Cos^4 falloff, alas, not cos^3 like a Biogon. But the 38/4.5 Biogon doesn't cover 2.25 x 3.25 and the 53/4.5 is very pricey. Also, my Zeiss guru Charlie Barringer, who has both, says the 47 SA is probably a better lens than the 53 Biogon.
Cheers,
Dan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2144
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2005-01-02 15:37, egoldste wrote:
Thanks for the reply and the civility...
I think the question of a rangefinder to focus a 65 on a 23 format depends upon what aperture you are shooting (with f/4 possible), how close you are shooting, and how much you are enlarging. I will likely put a double shoe on the Speed and use an aux rangefinder on one and a viewfinder on the other...
In terms of Angulons versus SAs, the Angulons were basically Protar/Holostigmat/Dagor types, cemented symetrical triplets. The later Plasmat/SA development of this type took the inside elements and seperated them, allowing for additional degrees of freedom and significantly higher order abberration correction (at the cost of coverage and higher flare before coating came along).
The fall-off you describe is strictly speaking I believe not a function of vignetting or mechanical obstruction but rather of cos4. I am guessing that this would be less pronounced on a 65 than a 47 all things being equal.
Again, very much appreciate the sharing of experience... Thank you.
|
Three comments.
The two 65 Super Angulons have maximum apertures of f/5.6 and f/8, respectively. Can't shoot either at f/4, so that shouldn't be a consideration.
Yes, on 2x3 a 65 will show less falloff than a 47. Smaller theta.
If you visit http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/archiv.htm
and look at lens' cross sections, you'll see that the Super Angulon is not in the plasmat family. Plasmats' outer groups are cemented pairs, their inner groups are each a singlet. In the SA its the other way 'round, singlet outside, cemented pair inside. Not that this matters very much.
Good luck, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
egoldste
Joined: 01 Jan 2005
Posts: 9
Location: New England, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you Dan... you are absolutely right. The SA is a Biogon type after Roosinov. It too was a development of the symmetrical anastigmat triplet but the first and last elements was pulled away and not the inside elements as in the Plasmat; AOV is dramatically higher.
Ok, acknowledged that f/5.6 is my maximum aperture and not one of the 65/4s, but even at 5.6 working in relatively close and at enlargement I would not want to rely on guestimating... YMMV. With you guys swearing that the Kalart is not an option, think I'll go with the aux rangefinder/viewfinder arrangement I described.
Better start looking for a lens... would appreciate if you'd let me know if you stumble across something worthwhile.
Again, many thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2144
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2005-01-02 18:46, egoldste wrote:
Thank you Dan... you are absolutely right. The SA is a Biogon type after Roosinov. It too was a development of the symmetrical anastigmat triplet but the first and last elements was pulled away and not the inside elements as in the Plasmat; AOV is dramatically higher.
Ok, acknowledged that f/5.6 is my maximum aperture and not one of the 65/4s, but even at 5.6 working in relatively close and at enlargement I would not want to rely on guestimating... YMMV. With you guys swearing that the Kalart is not an option, think I'll go with the aux rangefinder/viewfinder arrangement I described.
Better start looking for a lens... would appreciate if you'd let me know if you stumble across something worthwhile.
Again, many thanks.
|
SAs are well-known, therefore hard to find at prices usefully below market. eBay's probably the best place to look.
If you can live with a maximum aperture of f/8, Ilex Acugons, also sold as Ilex Caltars, are at least as good as the equivalent SA and usually sell for less. I bought my 65/8 was as a mystery lens for very little, turned out to be an Acugon. Lucky find, hard to repeat. They came in three sizes, 47/8, 65/8, 90/8.
Good luck, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
egoldste
Joined: 01 Jan 2005
Posts: 9
Location: New England, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Dan -
How well does the Ilex shoot at f/8? How is definition and illumination to the corners?
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2144
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2005-01-03 07:51, egoldste wrote:
Hi Dan -
How well does the Ilex shoot at f/8? How is definition and illumination to the corners?
Thanks.
|
I don't know, I usually shoot it at f/11 or f/16. At those apertures it is sharp to the corners and I don't find the falloff annoying. Claimed circle is 153 mm, lots more than needed for 2x3. As with a Super Angulon illumination falls off at cos^4(theta). It is effectively the same lens as an SA. Neither the Acugon nor the SA has a tilting exit pupil like a Biogon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001
Posts: 2144
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2005-01-02 18:46, egoldste wrote:
Thank you Dan... you are absolutely right. The SA is a Biogon type after Roosinov. It too was a development of the symmetrical anastigmat triplet but the first and last elements was pulled away and not the inside elements as in the Plasmat; AOV is dramatically higher.
Ok, acknowledged that f/5.6 is my maximum aperture and not one of the 65/4s, but even at 5.6 working in relatively close and at enlargement I would not want to rely on guestimating... YMMV. With you guys swearing that the Kalart is not an option, think I'll go with the aux rangefinder/viewfinder arrangement I described.
Better start looking for a lens... would appreciate if you'd let me know if you stumble across something worthwhile.
Again, many thanks.
|
What you should do about an auxiliary viewfinder depends on costs.
FWIW, Graflex made a #3060 VF W/A adapter that slides into the standard tubular VF like a mask. It has a negative lens, shows approximately what a 90 mm lens will see on 4x5 and what a 65 mm lens will see on 2x3. To see what one looks like, visit http://www.geocities.com/antjam65/GraflexInfo.html
I bought one about ten years ago from Midwest Photo Exchange (www.mpex.com). They still have 'em, here's what the listing shows:
W.A. Optical Mask 9+ $59 30GRXX-40055
There may be a less expensive way to accomplish what you want to do.
Good luck,
Dan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
egoldste
Joined: 01 Jan 2005
Posts: 9
Location: New England, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2005 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Great stuff! Thank you.
I was thinking of going the Cosina/Voigtlander route... they have high grade finders for about $150 new and you can find them for about $100 used...
Ebay has a few 65 SAs up at this time... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
