Tominon 127mm Doesn't Match Shutter?

Good Evening,


I looked at this on Ebay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...EBWA%3AIT&rd=1

And if you notice on the side: it says 5 inches/127mm!

Lo and behold, i checked my shutter, and athough it's a Copal
one type shutter, on the side it says 3 inches/75mm!

I suppose this would explain why the pics are noticably less
sharp in the center than the Schneider?


Slick

(Dr. Slick) wrote in message . com...
Good Evening,


I looked at this on Ebay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...EBWA%3AIT&rd=1

And if you notice on the side: it says 5 inches/127mm!

Lo and behold, i checked my shutter, and athough it's a Copal
one type shutter, on the side it says 3 inches/75mm!

I suppose this would explain why the pics are noticably less
sharp in the center than the Schneider?


Slick
Um, I don't have a clue which of the many 127/4.7 Tominons you have.
MINE (I just checked) came from a CU-5 -- I removed it with my own
hands -- and its shutter has no lens-specific markings on the side.

I don't shoot 4x5, I shoot 2x3. On 2x3, my 127/4.7 Tominon is nearly
as sharp centrally at infinity at f/11 and f/16 as the 101/4.5 Ektar
that's my standard of comparison. And it covers, not just
illuminates, the format at infinity. I've never shot it close-up, its
a little long for that on my cameras.

You have to remember that not all examples of a lens were equally good
when manufactured and that after years of use/abuse they're even less
equal. You also have to understand that 127/4.7 Tominons as sold with
many specialized Polaroid cameras are very poorly documented. They
may have been made to slightly different specs, depending on the
camera they were to be put on. There seem to be many production
variations. You've just pointed us at one.

If you don't like yours, get rid of it and get something that might be
better. For close-up work -- magnification 1:10 to 1:1 -- there's
little that beats a modern 6-element plasmat type enlarging lens.
These things are going very cheaply on eBay. Get one, mount it in
front of a shutter, and go shoot. About front-mounting, I've attached
a 4"/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar to a #1 Copal Press from a Polaroid MP-4
with darkroom tape. Ugly, not as robust as I'd like, but the results
close-up are very satisfactory.

Cheers,

Dan

(Dr. Slick) wrote in message
. com...
Good Evening,

I looked at this on Ebay:


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...EBWA%3AIT&rd=1

And if you notice on the side: it says 5 inches/127mm!

Lo and behold, i checked my shutter, and athough it's a Copal
one type shutter, on the side it says 3 inches/75mm!

That label is also the f-stop scale. It's more likely labeled specifically
for the 5" because the f-stop settings fit _that_ lens. I really doubt the
cell spacing is different - but note that those lenses probably came off a
Polaroid MP camera which is used for flat, close work and not infinity so we
have to ask if the cell spacing is different for that reason alone. The
aperture blade count is low, too, which gives crummy bokeh (imho).

Dr. Slick wrote:

Good Evening,


I looked at this on Ebay:


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...EBWA%3AIT&rd=1

And if you notice on the side: it says 5 inches/127mm!

Lo and behold, i checked my shutter, and athough it's a Copal
one type shutter, on the side it says 3 inches/75mm!

I suppose this would explain why the pics are noticably less
sharp in the center than the Schneider?



I doubt the cell spacing is any different between the 2 shutters, but could
make the f stop scale off.

--

Stacey

On 2/4/2004 4:09 PM jjs spake thus:

(Dr. Slick) wrote in message
. com...

I looked at this on Ebay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...EBWA%3AIT&rd=1

And if you notice on the side: it says 5 inches/127mm!

Lo and behold, i checked my shutter, and athough it's a Copal
one type shutter, on the side it says 3 inches/75mm!

That label is also the f-stop scale. It's more likely labeled specifically
for the 5" because the f-stop settings fit _that_ lens. I really doubt the
cell spacing is different - but note that those lenses probably came off a
Polaroid MP camera which is used for flat, close work and not infinity so we
have to ask if the cell spacing is different for that reason alone. The
aperture blade count is low, too, which gives crummy bokeh (imho).

Yes, the buyer (the OP) and I (the seller) discussed just that: "bokeh"
(something that may or may not actually exist) is not an issue in this case,
as the lens is only to be used for copying flat artwork. But yes, that
pentagonal aperture is about as skimpy as you can get. Should work fine in the
intended application, though.


--
It's fun to demonize the neo-cons and rejoice in their discomfiture, but
don't make the mistake of thinking US foreign policy was set by Norman
Podhoretz or William Kristol. They're the clowns capering about in front of
the donkey and the elephant. The donkey says the UN should clean up after
them, and the elephant now says the donkey may have a point. Somebody has
come out with a dustpan and broom.

- Alexander Cockburn, _CounterPunch_
(http://www.counterpunch.org), 9/17/03

Stacey wrote in message ...

Lo and behold, i checked my shutter, and athough it's a Copal
one type shutter, on the side it says 3 inches/75mm!

I suppose this would explain why the pics are noticably less
sharp in the center than the Schneider?



I doubt the cell spacing is any different between the 2 shutters, but could
make the f stop scale off.


Ok, so the lens spacing for a 75mm and for a 127mm are exactly
the same?

The f stop scale being off would explain why I thought my
Luna-pro has been way off! Way underexposed at first!

Ok, i'm gonna tighten the rear cell a bit and see if things don't
get a bit sharper. And i'll try f22.


Slick

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
...
On 2/4/2004 4:09 PM jjs spake thus:

Yes, the buyer (the OP) and I (the seller) discussed just that: "bokeh"
(something that may or may not actually exist) [...]

Are you suggesting there is no such thing as bokeh? Like Art?

David Nebenzahl wrote:


Yes, the buyer (the OP) and I (the seller) discussed just that: "bokeh"
(something that may or may not actually exist)

You can't be serious.

--

Stacey

On 2/5/2004 5:24 PM Stacey spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Yes, the buyer (the OP) and I (the seller) discussed just that: "bokeh"
(something that may or may not actually exist)

You can't be serious.

Actually, I am. Look; no two people can actually agree on what constitutes
"good bokeh" or "bad bokeh". I'm not saying that there aren't differences
between out-of-focus backgrounds due to, among other factors, aperture shape;
but if you read about this subject much at all, you quickly reach the
how-many-zen-masters-taking-photographs-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin stage.

Izall I'm saying.

--
It's fun to demonize the neo-cons and rejoice in their discomfiture, but
don't make the mistake of thinking US foreign policy was set by Norman
Podhoretz or William Kristol. They're the clowns capering about in front of
the donkey and the elephant. The donkey says the UN should clean up after
them, and the elephant now says the donkey may have a point. Somebody has
come out with a dustpan and broom.

- Alexander Cockburn, _CounterPunch_
(http://www.counterpunch.org), 9/17/03

In article , David Nebenzahl
wrote:

Actually, I am. Look; no two people can actually agree on what constitutes
"good bokeh" or "bad bokeh". I'm not saying that there aren't differences
between out-of-focus backgrounds due to, among other factors, aperture shape;
but if you read about this subject much at all, you quickly reach the
how-many-zen-masters-taking-photographs-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin stage.

All I know about zen masters would fit on the head of a pin, but the
qualities of bokeh are mysteries I'd rather call personal and cultural.
But it exists. I don't see much LF work that has bokeh. Most is stopped
down to the max, or has subjects farther than 30 feet (relative size to
the POV) so bokeh doesn't exist in such subjects.