If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
SWC - what's the straight scoop?
Hasselblad has made something like four, maybe more, variations of the SWC.
The latest lens allegedly usees lesser glass to accommodate environmental concerns. I'm just not sure. So which, if any, SWC model has the T* coating that was made before they switched to the environmentally friendly glass? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
jjs wrote:
Hasselblad has made something like four, maybe more, variations of the SWC. The latest lens allegedly usees lesser glass to accommodate environmental concerns. I'm just not sure. It uses other (!) types of glass. In no way lesser. The lens' performance is very much the same as that of the ones with the no longer used glass. There are slight differences in MTF between the old and new (going from image center to corner), but it's hard, if not impossible, to tell which of the two would be better than the other. The differences are really minimal, and where the one is better in the center of the image than the other, the other is better in the corners. This near identical performance is amazing, since the initial design was done using slide rules and note pads, the current redesign made use of brute-force computer calculations. So which, if any, SWC model has the T* coating that was made before they switched to the environmentally friendly glass? There is no connection between T* coating and new glasses. T* coating was applied to all Biogons since 1973. At that time, the "SWC" with black finish lens barrel was the current model. Before that, all lenses had a single layer T coating. The model with the redesigned Biogon is the current 905 SWC. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
jjs wrote:
Hasselblad has made something like four, maybe more, variations of the SWC. The latest lens allegedly usees lesser glass to accommodate environmental concerns. I'm just not sure. It uses other (!) types of glass. In no way lesser. The lens' performance is very much the same as that of the ones with the no longer used glass. There are slight differences in MTF between the old and new (going from image center to corner), but it's hard, if not impossible, to tell which of the two would be better than the other. The differences are really minimal, and where the one is better in the center of the image than the other, the other is better in the corners. This near identical performance is amazing, since the initial design was done using slide rules and note pads, the current redesign made use of brute-force computer calculations. So which, if any, SWC model has the T* coating that was made before they switched to the environmentally friendly glass? There is no connection between T* coating and new glasses. T* coating was applied to all Biogons since 1973. At that time, the "SWC" with black finish lens barrel was the current model. Before that, all lenses had a single layer T coating. The model with the redesigned Biogon is the current 905 SWC. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote: The model with the redesigned Biogon is the current 905 SWC. Has anyone done a head-to-head comparison (like this* one of the 80mm lenses) of the Biogon and the Mamiya 43/4.5? The extra 13% image magnification strikes me as a lot more attractive then the extra vertical, although the extra vertical can be used for a bit of shift of a rectangular crop. Chris's numbers** for the Mamiya 7's 50mm lens have a disturbing dip at the far edge at f/5.6 and f/8. (The stuff I do really requires the edges to hang in there. I just shot some Reala in my f/3.5 T* Tessar Rolleiflex, and scanned at 4000 dpi the center is flipping amazing, but the edges and corners are a disaster. Sigh.) *: http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html **: http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 22:33:56 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote: Chris's numbers** for the Mamiya 7's 50mm lens have a disturbing dip at the far edge at f/5.6 and f/8. (The stuff I do really requires the edges to hang in there. I just shot some Reala in my f/3.5 T* Tessar Rolleiflex, and scanned at 4000 dpi the center is flipping amazing, but the edges and corners are a disaster. Sigh.) Dave, did I just hear you say "Reala" and "sharp" in the same sentence? rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 22:33:56 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote: Chris's numbers** for the Mamiya 7's 50mm lens have a disturbing dip at the far edge at f/5.6 and f/8. (The stuff I do really requires the edges to hang in there. I just shot some Reala in my f/3.5 T* Tessar Rolleiflex, and scanned at 4000 dpi the center is flipping amazing, but the edges and corners are a disaster. Sigh.) Dave, did I just hear you say "Reala" and "sharp" in the same sentence? rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"rafe bustin" wrote: "David J. Littleboy" wrote: Chris's numbers** for the Mamiya 7's 50mm lens have a disturbing dip at the far edge at f/5.6 and f/8. (The stuff I do really requires the edges to hang in there. I just shot some Reala in my f/3.5 T* Tessar Rolleiflex, and scanned at 4000 dpi the center is flipping amazing, but the edges and corners are a disaster. Sigh.) Dave, did I just hear you say "Reala" and "sharp" in the same sentence? Yes. I'm re-evaluating my films. Although it doesn't have the colors of Provia/Velvia 100F, it looks quite good at 2800 dpi (downsampled from 4000 dpi). I think that with NeatImage and some aggressive sharpening it'll look very good on a 9x print. That's 13x19 from 645, and I'm home free when I get the PX-G5000. But the Tessar ain't up to the job. Sigh. Bummer of the week. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 23:36:17 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote: "rafe bustin" wrote: "David J. Littleboy" wrote: Chris's numbers** for the Mamiya 7's 50mm lens have a disturbing dip at the far edge at f/5.6 and f/8. (The stuff I do really requires the edges to hang in there. I just shot some Reala in my f/3.5 T* Tessar Rolleiflex, and scanned at 4000 dpi the center is flipping amazing, but the edges and corners are a disaster. Sigh.) Dave, did I just hear you say "Reala" and "sharp" in the same sentence? Yes. I'm re-evaluating my films. Although it doesn't have the colors of Provia/Velvia 100F, it looks quite good at 2800 dpi (downsampled from 4000 dpi). I think that with NeatImage and some aggressive sharpening it'll look very good on a 9x print. That's 13x19 from 645, and I'm home free when I get the PX-G5000. The only problem with Reala is the noise, which shows up in the shadow detail of prints. The sharpness is first-rate. NeatImage is a nice tool. PX-G5000 being presumably the 13" version of your Epson R800? I've been printing on an HP DesignJet 30 for the last few weeks and getting to like it. Who knew? It prints 13x19". Archival dye-ink prints, if HP and Henry Wilhelm are to be believed. Some very nice features, and "pro" grade construction. Tessar, Biogon, whatever. I've never taken this stuff seriously but have noticed that my Nikon 90mm LF lens is way sharp and is refered to as a "biogon derivative." Hmmm. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 23:36:17 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote: "rafe bustin" wrote: "David J. Littleboy" wrote: Chris's numbers** for the Mamiya 7's 50mm lens have a disturbing dip at the far edge at f/5.6 and f/8. (The stuff I do really requires the edges to hang in there. I just shot some Reala in my f/3.5 T* Tessar Rolleiflex, and scanned at 4000 dpi the center is flipping amazing, but the edges and corners are a disaster. Sigh.) Dave, did I just hear you say "Reala" and "sharp" in the same sentence? Yes. I'm re-evaluating my films. Although it doesn't have the colors of Provia/Velvia 100F, it looks quite good at 2800 dpi (downsampled from 4000 dpi). I think that with NeatImage and some aggressive sharpening it'll look very good on a 9x print. That's 13x19 from 645, and I'm home free when I get the PX-G5000. The only problem with Reala is the noise, which shows up in the shadow detail of prints. The sharpness is first-rate. NeatImage is a nice tool. PX-G5000 being presumably the 13" version of your Epson R800? I've been printing on an HP DesignJet 30 for the last few weeks and getting to like it. Who knew? It prints 13x19". Archival dye-ink prints, if HP and Henry Wilhelm are to be believed. Some very nice features, and "pro" grade construction. Tessar, Biogon, whatever. I've never taken this stuff seriously but have noticed that my Nikon 90mm LF lens is way sharp and is refered to as a "biogon derivative." Hmmm. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"rafe bustin" wrote:
The only problem with Reala is the noise, Where does it come from in this particular case, Rafe? Does it have something to do with a specific dye-layer in Reala? I've struggled with Kodachrome 25 for such reasons. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Contrast Index Question: Newbie | In The Trenches | In The Darkroom | 24 | June 1st 04 01:14 AM |