View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
perrycas
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 Posts: 48 Location: Sydney Australia
|
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
I know this is an oldish lense, any opinions on how it might work in a Crown?
opinions valued
Perry |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
troublemaker
Joined: 24 Nov 2003 Posts: 715 Location: So Cal
|
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
see below
[ This Message was edited by: troublemaker on 2005-04-14 23:09 ]
[ This Message was edited by: troublemaker on 2005-04-15 20:33 ] |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2144 Location: New Jersey
|
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
On 2005-04-14 18:40, perrycas wrote:
I know this is an oldish lense, any opinions on how it might work in a Crown?
opinions valued
Perry
| Schneider rates it as a lens for 2x3, not 4x5. There are better 65s, e.g., f/8 and f/5.6 Super Angulons and 65/8 Ilex Acugon. All of these just cover 4x5.
Good luck, have fun, read the FAQs!
Dan |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
troublemaker
Joined: 24 Nov 2003 Posts: 715 Location: So Cal
|
Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Rich for the correction. I have not the slightest idea what happened to my eyesight, so perhaps some pre-exhibit anxiety has got the better of me. Taking three nights off and away from the dark room to contemplate the diffrence between 65 and 90. I must say that Dann's post makes more sense after a good laugh at myself. And I will add that I have avoided the urge to fit a 65 Ang. to my 2x3's because the smallest aperture seems to be 22, and that extra stop to 32 makes a difference on the littel Raptars, as soft as they be...
Thanks, and all apologies,
Stephen
[ This Message was edited by: troublemaker on 2005-04-15 19:26 ]
[ This Message was edited by: troublemaker on 2005-04-15 20:31 ]
[ This Message was edited by: troublemaker on 2005-04-15 20:46 ] |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
RichS
Joined: 18 Oct 2001 Posts: 1468 Location: South of Rochester, NY
|
Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Stephen... Dan and Perry are talking about the 65 Angulon, not the 90...
From the psecs, all three 90mm Angulons were designed for 4x5 with a 152mm image circle. Where's the problem?
The 65mm was designed for 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 with a 109mm @ f/22 image circle. Not quite close enough to cover 4x5! Sure they are known to be concervative with their ratings, but I doubt that much. Even the 65mm f/8 SA with an image circle of 155mm just covers 4x5 with dark edges. What chance would the non S have?
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
perrycas
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 Posts: 48 Location: Sydney Australia
|
Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
thanks a lot for the information. Most helpful.
Perry |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
RichS
Joined: 18 Oct 2001 Posts: 1468 Location: South of Rochester, NY
|
Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
On 2005-04-15 19:10, troublemaker wrote:
...
Thanks, and all apologies,
Stephen
|
No appologies needed. I've made worse mistakes than that And at least you don't make the typo's that I do (I still blame this keyboard though)...
But I do think editing out your old msg is a real cheat! I should go back over my old messages
_________________ ----------------------------------------
"Ya just can't have too many GVIIs"
---------------------------------------- |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
troublemaker
Joined: 24 Nov 2003 Posts: 715 Location: So Cal
|
Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Now that perrycas has the usefull info...
Oh fear not,
one must step on thine own foot more than once to remember how to fall down...
Have a good weekend,
Stephen |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2144 Location: New Jersey
|
Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
On 2005-04-15 22:21, RichS wrote:
Quote: |
On 2005-04-15 19:10, troublemaker wrote:
...
Thanks, and all apologies,
Stephen
|
No appologies needed. I've made worse mistakes than that And at least you don't make the typo's that I do (I still blame this keyboard though)...
But I do think editing out your old msg is a real cheat! I should go back over my old messages
| Ah. Another person with a tripewriter. Welcome to the club, Rich. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
45PSS
Joined: 28 Sep 2001 Posts: 4081 Location: Mid Peninsula, Ca.
|
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
[ This Message was edited by: 45PSS on 2005-12-24 21:40 ] |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
RichS
Joined: 18 Oct 2001 Posts: 1468 Location: South of Rochester, NY
|
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks
The keyboard may function as designed, but what a design... One of those Dell mini keyboards that my fingers simply can't get along with. And even after two years or so, I still have not gotten the adapter to hook up one of my old standard IBM keyboards to this computer. As we all well know, newer is not always better...
Getting the fingers into the center of these keys is a real chore... But it's the simple typos that kill me. I tend to think faster than I type so letters get transposed and most often I'm just too lazy to proofread and correct. The real joy is in programming where a typo is a killer.....
_________________
----------------------------------------
"Ya just can't have too many GVIIs"
----------------------------------------
[ This Message was edited by: RichS on 2005-04-18 21:50 ] |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|