Think Shop

I would dearly love to buy a 5x4" outfit, yet I can't currently justify
the purchase. However I have decided to indulge in a quick "Retail Thought
Experiment", or Think Shop if you will.
I understand the basics from my time in 120 and (particularly) 35mm that
the money goes into the lenses rather than the body. In LF, where the body
is a couple of standards with a bellows in between, I gather this is even
more true. So say I bought myself a cheap used Toyo, Arca or MPP monorail...
what lenses should I be looking at?
If I had to nail down what I want to do with the camera, i'd say
portraits, still lives and general studio shenanigans. I would prefer to buy
used; as I said, I can't justify buying the camera at all- I certainly can't
justify spending ££££s on yet another system. I understand Schneider and
Rodenstock make excellent lenses, but from some books i've read that certain
older lenses are better suited to B&W due to colour problems.
Suggestions?
--
Here lies the late Martin Francis
He couldn't tell you the technical merits of Leitz and Zeiss
But he did take some photographs once.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:44:32 +0000 (UTC), "Martin Francis"
m wrote:

I would dearly love to buy a 5x4" outfit, yet I can't currently justify
the purchase. However I have decided to indulge in a quick "Retail Thought
Experiment", or Think Shop if you will.
I understand the basics from my time in 120 and (particularly) 35mm that
the money goes into the lenses rather than the body. In LF, where the body
is a couple of standards with a bellows in between, I gather this is even
more true. So say I bought myself a cheap used Toyo, Arca or MPP monorail...
what lenses should I be looking at?
If I had to nail down what I want to do with the camera, i'd say
portraits, still lives and general studio shenanigans. I would prefer to buy
used; as I said, I can't justify buying the camera at all- I certainly can't
justify spending ££££s on yet another system. I understand Schneider and
Rodenstock make excellent lenses, but from some books i've read that certain
older lenses are better suited to B&W due to colour problems.
Suggestions?



There are good deals to be had on eBay of course.
Also check out KEH and Midwest Photo. This goes
for cameras as well as lenses.

In LF as in other formats, quality wide angles seem
to cost a bundle and have smaller image circles;
much better "deals" can be found for lenses in
the normal range (150 mm.)

I understand Caltars are really Rodenstock lenses,
and on that basis found a Caltar 150 mm f/5.6 for
a bit over $200, on eBay, in mint condition. Haven't
exposed any film with it yet, though.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

For what my opinion is worth, here it is:

I started using large format (4X5, as we call it over here is the U.S. of A.)
in order to take advantage of what appeared to me to be more and richer "tones"
rather than any significant increase in "sharpness". One of the best books
that I've ever read was one on image clarity and it suggested that the concept
of "sharpness" is really a pretty nebulous issue and is actually the result of
several aspects of the photographic process...essentially, "sharpness" is a
more a subjective perception and not really a precisely measureable physical
property.
(I'm getting into my own photo-philosophical territory here; I'm sure that the
techno-obsessives will make an argument.)
I, for example, use a 210 geronar lens for 4X5 (and on a medium format
horseman). The lens is, I understand, a three element "economy" special and
I've made good use of some information that a camera shop employee once dropped
on me about the aperture at which I could expect optimum performance. I've
done some nice things with the lens...would I be doing better with a 210
Sironar? Possibly...but for right now, it's adequate in terms of its resolving
power and the prints have the look and tonal quality that I've wanted. I was
at the Ansel Adams 100 show here and overheard two older ladies who were
inspecting "Clearing Winter Storm"...they had their faces as close to that
photo as the gallery guards were likely to permit...one said, "...just look at
the detail!" Okay...from an eight by ten neg...shot with a lens that was
current when? fifty or sixty or seventy years ago? Could you buy one of those
lenses...the exact type that AA used to make that particular photograph?
Probably. Is there a "modern" lens that has higher specs than that lens?
Probably. Would the use of that "modern" lens have made that photo any more
grand or inspirational....?
Let's go totally cornball for a minute....What you shoot and what you shoot it
with is less important than the fact that you shoot and you actively think and
feel about the process. What was the Minor White line..."...for technical
information: the camera was faithfully used."
If you want to go 5X4...look around and see if you can find an "outfit" and see
if you can't find a bargain somewhere and get your feet wet. Maybe even a
press graphic would be a good way to get going...maybe you can even find
someone willing to let you borrow some stuff so that you can get a feel for it.
Please don't keep away from it while you worry about the technical specs of
whatever equipment you can afford....it's like not driving because you can't
afford a BMW.

argon

In article ,
Raphael Bustin wrote:
I understand Caltars are really Rodenstock lenses, and on that basis
found a Caltar 150 mm f/5.6 for a bit over $200, on eBay, in mint
condition. Haven't exposed any film with it yet, though.

Some Caltars are Rodenstock, some are Schneider, and some are other
manufacturers. Kerry Thalmann had an article in View Camera magazine
recently listing the various Caltars and their original manufacturers.

My Caltar II-N 150mm f/5.6 lens came in a Rodenstock box with a
Calumet sticker on it. The lens is engraved Caltar II-N. It's a very
nice lens, although my current favorite is a 10 inch f/6.3 Kodak
Commercial Ektar.

--
Brian Reynolds | "But in the new approach, as you know,
| the important thing is to understand
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what you're doing rather than to get
NAR# 54438 | the right answer." -- Tom Lehrer

I think you hit the nail on the head. With the larger formats the lens
has less to do with the image quality then a lot of people want it to. I
think that when people start with 35mm were you need every bit of quality
in the lens that you can get getting the best possible lens is vital.
However with LF it isn't as important. The design of LF lenses hasn't
changed much in the last twenty or so years. Heck I go out with lenses
that are more then a half a centruy old and get results that still amaze
me.

I'd be willing to bet that the lowest quality LF lens that I have is an
order of magnitude of higher quality then the lens that AA used to take
his most famous images. Which goes to show that I have only myself to
blame. :-)

Argon3 wrote:
: For what my opinion is worth, here it is:

: I started using large format (4X5, as we call it over here is the U.S. of A.)
: in order to take advantage of what appeared to me to be more and richer "tones"
: rather than any significant increase in "sharpness". One of the best books
: that I've ever read was one on image clarity and it suggested that the concept
: of "sharpness" is really a pretty nebulous issue and is actually the result of
: several aspects of the photographic process...essentially, "sharpness" is a
: more a subjective perception and not really a precisely measureable physical
: property.
: (I'm getting into my own photo-philosophical territory here; I'm sure that the
: techno-obsessives will make an argument.)
: I, for example, use a 210 geronar lens for 4X5 (and on a medium format
: horseman). The lens is, I understand, a three element "economy" special and
: I've made good use of some information that a camera shop employee once dropped
: on me about the aperture at which I could expect optimum performance. I've
: done some nice things with the lens...would I be doing better with a 210
: Sironar? Possibly...but for right now, it's adequate in terms of its resolving
: power and the prints have the look and tonal quality that I've wanted. I was
: at the Ansel Adams 100 show here and overheard two older ladies who were
: inspecting "Clearing Winter Storm"...they had their faces as close to that
: photo as the gallery guards were likely to permit...one said, "...just look at
: the detail!" Okay...from an eight by ten neg...shot with a lens that was
: current when? fifty or sixty or seventy years ago? Could you buy one of those
: lenses...the exact type that AA used to make that particular photograph?
: Probably. Is there a "modern" lens that has higher specs than that lens?
: Probably. Would the use of that "modern" lens have made that photo any more
: grand or inspirational....?
: Let's go totally cornball for a minute....What you shoot and what you shoot it
: with is less important than the fact that you shoot and you actively think and
: feel about the process. What was the Minor White line..."...for technical
: information: the camera was faithfully used."
: If you want to go 5X4...look around and see if you can find an "outfit" and see
: if you can't find a bargain somewhere and get your feet wet. Maybe even a
: press graphic would be a good way to get going...maybe you can even find
: someone willing to let you borrow some stuff so that you can get a feel for it.
: Please don't keep away from it while you worry about the technical specs of
: whatever equipment you can afford....it's like not driving because you can't
: afford a BMW.

: argon

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

I was
: at the Ansel Adams 100 show here and overheard two older ladies who were
: inspecting "Clearing Winter Storm"...they had their faces as close to
that
: photo as the gallery guards were likely to permit...one said, "...just
look at
: the detail!" Okay...from an eight by ten neg...shot with a lens that
was
: current when? fifty or sixty or seventy years ago? Could you buy one
of those
: lenses...the exact type that AA used to make that particular photograph?
: Probably.

Adams used a 12 1/2 inch Cooke Series XV lens to make that photograph. I see
Cooke lenses of various types for sale occasionally and you probably could
find that exact one if you looked hard enough. Your basic point is certainly
correct - it's the photographer, not the equipment. They were making
equipment that was good enough at least seventy five years ago, probably
longer. They just haven't made too many Ansel Adams.

"Frank Pittel" wrote in message
...
I think you hit the nail on the head. With the larger formats the lens
has less to do with the image quality then a lot of people want it to. I
think that when people start with 35mm were you need every bit of quality
in the lens that you can get getting the best possible lens is vital.
However with LF it isn't as important. The design of LF lenses hasn't
changed much in the last twenty or so years. Heck I go out with lenses
that are more then a half a centruy old and get results that still amaze
me.

I'd be willing to bet that the lowest quality LF lens that I have is an
order of magnitude of higher quality then the lens that AA used to take
his most famous images. Which goes to show that I have only myself to
blame. :-)

Argon3 wrote:
: For what my opinion is worth, here it is:

: I started using large format (4X5, as we call it over here is the U.S.
of A.)
: in order to take advantage of what appeared to me to be more and richer
"tones"
: rather than any significant increase in "sharpness". One of the best
books
: that I've ever read was one on image clarity and it suggested that the
concept
: of "sharpness" is really a pretty nebulous issue and is actually the
result of
: several aspects of the photographic process...essentially, "sharpness"
is a
: more a subjective perception and not really a precisely measureable
physical
: property.
: (I'm getting into my own photo-philosophical territory here; I'm sure
that the
: techno-obsessives will make an argument.)
: I, for example, use a 210 geronar lens for 4X5 (and on a medium format
: horseman). The lens is, I understand, a three element "economy" special
and
: I've made good use of some information that a camera shop employee once
dropped
: on me about the aperture at which I could expect optimum performance.
I've
: done some nice things with the lens...would I be doing better with a 210
: Sironar? Possibly...but for right now, it's adequate in terms of its
resolving
: power and the prints have the look and tonal quality that I've wanted.
I was
: at the Ansel Adams 100 show here and overheard two older ladies who were
: inspecting "Clearing Winter Storm"...they had their faces as close to
that
: photo as the gallery guards were likely to permit...one said, "...just
look at
: the detail!" Okay...from an eight by ten neg...shot with a lens that
was
: current when? fifty or sixty or seventy years ago? Could you buy one
of those
: lenses...the exact type that AA used to make that particular photograph?
: Probably. Is there a "modern" lens that has higher specs than that
lens?
: Probably. Would the use of that "modern" lens have made that photo any
more
: grand or inspirational....?
: Let's go totally cornball for a minute....What you shoot and what you
shoot it
: with is less important than the fact that you shoot and you actively
think and
: feel about the process. What was the Minor White line..."...for
technical
: information: the camera was faithfully used."
: If you want to go 5X4...look around and see if you can find an "outfit"
and see
: if you can't find a bargain somewhere and get your feet wet. Maybe even
a
: press graphic would be a good way to get going...maybe you can even find
: someone willing to let you borrow some stuff so that you can get a feel
for it.
: Please don't keep away from it while you worry about the technical
specs of
: whatever equipment you can afford....it's like not driving because you
can't
: afford a BMW.

: argon

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

"Frank Pittel" wrote in message
...
I think you hit the nail on the head. With the larger formats the lens
has less to do with the image quality then a lot of people want it to. I
think that when people start with 35mm were you need every bit of quality
in the lens that you can get getting the best possible lens is vital.
However with LF it isn't as important. The design of LF lenses hasn't
changed much in the last twenty or so years. Heck I go out with lenses
that are more then a half a centruy old and get results that still amaze
me.

I'd be willing to bet that the lowest quality LF lens that I have is an
order of magnitude of higher quality then the lens that AA used to take
his most famous images. Which goes to show that I have only myself to
blame. :-)

Well, you can always blame the darkslides for not holding your film flat
enough.... or the landscape for not looking grand... ;-)

--
Here lies the late Martin Francis
He couldn't tell you the technical merits of Leitz and Zeiss
But he did take some photographs once.

"Argon3" wrote in message
...
For what my opinion is worth, here it is:

I started using large format (4X5, as we call it over here is the U.S. of
A.)
in order to take advantage of what appeared to me to be more and richer
"tones"
rather than any significant increase in "sharpness". One of the best
books
that I've ever read was one on image clarity and it suggested that the
concept
of "sharpness" is really a pretty nebulous issue and is actually the
result of
several aspects of the photographic process...essentially, "sharpness" is
a
more a subjective perception and not really a precisely measureable
physical
property.
(I'm getting into my own photo-philosophical territory here; I'm sure that
the
techno-obsessives will make an argument.)
I, for example, use a 210 geronar lens for 4X5 (and on a medium format
horseman). The lens is, I understand, a three element "economy" special
and
I've made good use of some information that a camera shop employee once
dropped
on me about the aperture at which I could expect optimum performance.
I've
done some nice things with the lens...would I be doing better with a 210
Sironar? Possibly...but for right now, it's adequate in terms of its
resolving
power and the prints have the look and tonal quality that I've wanted. I
was
at the Ansel Adams 100 show here and overheard two older ladies who were
inspecting "Clearing Winter Storm"...they had their faces as close to that
photo as the gallery guards were likely to permit...one said, "...just
look at
the detail!" Okay...from an eight by ten neg...shot with a lens that was
current when? fifty or sixty or seventy years ago? Could you buy one of
those
lenses...the exact type that AA used to make that particular photograph?
Probably. Is there a "modern" lens that has higher specs than that lens?
Probably. Would the use of that "modern" lens have made that photo any
more
grand or inspirational....?
Let's go totally cornball for a minute....What you shoot and what you
shoot it
with is less important than the fact that you shoot and you actively think
and
feel about the process. What was the Minor White line..."...for technical
information: the camera was faithfully used."
If you want to go 5X4...look around and see if you can find an "outfit"
and see
if you can't find a bargain somewhere and get your feet wet. Maybe even a
press graphic would be a good way to get going...maybe you can even find
someone willing to let you borrow some stuff so that you can get a feel
for it.
Please don't keep away from it while you worry about the technical specs
of
whatever equipment you can afford....it's like not driving because you
can't
afford a BMW.

argon

Wow, you LF people are odd. You wouldn't expect talk like that in any other
r.p.equipment group!

I do see your point though, I just assumed that some older lenses (back when
colour was more expensive and less comon than B&W) would be worse at colour
than others. Well, I say assumed, I read it in a Roger Hicks book. My bad.

--
Here lies the late Martin Francis
He couldn't tell you the technical merits of Leitz and Zeiss
But he did take some photographs once.

Martin Francis m wrote:


Wow, you LF people are odd. You wouldn't expect talk like that in any other
r.p.equipment group!

I do see your point though, I just assumed that some older lenses (back when
colour was more expensive and less comon than B&W) would be worse at colour
than others. Well, I say assumed, I read it in a Roger Hicks book. My bad.


It's been a long time since anybody built anything but pro LF lenses. Even
the cheap ones aren't going to be used on a lowend P&S by somebody more
likely to blame themselves. Newer doesn't equal better. It just means newer.
You'll find some people like the older lenses better. Some like the newer
ones better. Some will spend quite a bit to get a relatively ancient lens
mounted in a brand new shutter.

Nick

Martin Francis m wrote:
: "Frank Pittel" wrote in message
: ...
: I think you hit the nail on the head. With the larger formats the lens
: has less to do with the image quality then a lot of people want it to. I
: think that when people start with 35mm were you need every bit of quality
: in the lens that you can get getting the best possible lens is vital.
: However with LF it isn't as important. The design of LF lenses hasn't
: changed much in the last twenty or so years. Heck I go out with lenses
: that are more then a half a centruy old and get results that still amaze
: me.
:
: I'd be willing to bet that the lowest quality LF lens that I have is an
: order of magnitude of higher quality then the lens that AA used to take
: his most famous images. Which goes to show that I have only myself to
: blame. :-)

: Well, you can always blame the darkslides for not holding your film flat
: enough.... or the landscape for not looking grand... ;-)

I usually blame the shutter timing or one or more of the adjustments slipped. :-)


--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------