@@@ Sweet Spot Aperture for Tominon 127mm ??????????????

Hi,

I've gotten a very nice Tominon 127mm from Dave, in a really nice
shutter.

And i was wondering what the sweet spot is for this lens? I mean
best compromise between coma and diffraction effects? The aperture
goes from f4.5 to f22, and i remember someone talking about most
lenses performing best somewhere in the middle.

i ended up using two 4 second exposures last night: one at f22 and
one at f19 (or f22 + 1/2 step, between f22 and f16).

I will post the results here, versus the Schneider 135mm.


Dr. Slick

Does that lens cover 4x5 at infinity?


(Dr. Slick) apparently said:

Hi,

I've gotten a very nice Tominon 127mm from Dave, in a really nice
shutter.

Dean Van Praotl wrote:

Does that lens cover 4x5 at infinity?



It might barely, but if it's anything like the rodenstock ysaron (which I
think it is), the quality won't be very good. These were designed for
close-up/copy work, are a fairly simple design and my testing/experience
with the ysarons showed me, while they are good close-up lenses, they are
poor for infinity type uses. My main experience was with a ysaron 105mm
f4.5 vs a 100mm WF ektar on 6X9. The Ektar was -much- better at infinity
while the ysaron was -much- better for close up use.

Maybe someone who has used an actual tominon at infinity would know for
sure, I'm just assuming these are similar to the ysaron.

As far as the sweet spot for the tominon, I'd think f11-f16 would be the
best to cover 4X5 well in close up use.

--

Stacey

On 1/31/2004 10:10 AM Stacey spake thus:

Dean Van Praotl wrote:

Does that lens cover 4x5 at infinity?

No.

It might barely, but if it's anything like the rodenstock ysaron (which I
think it is), the quality won't be very good. These were designed for
close-up/copy work, are a fairly simple design and my testing/experience
with the ysarons showed me, while they are good close-up lenses, they are
poor for infinity type uses. My main experience was with a ysaron 105mm
f4.5 vs a 100mm WF ektar on 6X9. The Ektar was -much- better at infinity
while the ysaron was -much- better for close up use.

As far as the sweet spot for the tominon, I'd think f11-f16 would be the
best to cover 4X5 well in close up use.

Speaking for the O.P. (I'm the one who's selling him the lens), he's using it
for close-up copy work. I'd probably agree with you, since depth of field
isn't too great an issue (copying flat work that's basically all in the plane
of focus).


--
It's stupid, moronic and too fcuking obvious, as obvious as counting your
fingers, so TELL ME SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW or just shut the fcuk up.

- "jjs" in extremis on rec.photo.darkroom

Dean Van Praotl wrote in message . ..
Does that lens cover 4x5 at infinity?



Yes, it's supposed to be able to cover 4x5.


Slick

Stacey wrote in message ...
Dean Van Praotl wrote:

Does that lens cover 4x5 at infinity?



It might barely, but if it's anything like the rodenstock ysaron (which I
think it is), the quality won't be very good. These were designed for
close-up/copy work, are a fairly simple design and my testing/experience
with the ysarons showed me, while they are good close-up lenses, they are
poor for infinity type uses. My main experience was with a ysaron 105mm
f4.5 vs a 100mm WF ektar on 6X9. The Ektar was -much- better at infinity
while the ysaron was -much- better for close up use.

Maybe someone who has used an actual tominon at infinity would know for
sure, I'm just assuming these are similar to the ysaron.

As far as the sweet spot for the tominon, I'd think f11-f16 would be the
best to cover 4X5 well in close up use.

I can't address the 127/4.7 Tominon's fitness for use on 4x5, but I
have an ex-CU-5 one that I use on a 2x3 Speed Graphic. It is quite
good on 2x3 at infinity at f/16 and f/22. I've also tried ex-MP-4
75/4.5 and 135/4.5 Tominons at infinity on my Speed; they were lousy,
as in I won't do that again.

Hope this adds to the prevailing confusion,

Dan

On 1/31/2004 12:37 PM Dr. Slick spake thus:

Dean Van Praotl wrote in message
. ..

Does that lens cover 4x5 at infinity?

Yes, it's supposed to be able to cover 4x5.

You're mixing up two questions here. Yes, it does cover 4x5. No, it won't
"cover" it (i.e., it won't give good results) at infinity.


--
It's stupid, moronic and too fcuking obvious, as obvious as counting your
fingers, so TELL ME SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW or just shut the fcuk up.

- "jjs" in extremis on rec.photo.darkroom

Dan Fromm wrote:


I can't address the 127/4.7 Tominon's fitness for use on 4x5, but I
have an ex-CU-5 one that I use on a 2x3 Speed Graphic. It is quite
good on 2x3 at infinity at f/16 and f/22. I've also tried ex-MP-4
75/4.5 and 135/4.5 Tominons at infinity on my Speed; they were lousy,
as in I won't do that again.

Hope this adds to the prevailing confusion,



I think the ysarons were used on the MP-4's as well. Might be a connection
there?
--

Stacey

Dr. Slick wrote:



So i suppose i could keep my Schneider for stuff in the distance,
landscapes and such, but it would seem to me that the "prism" effect i
get doing copy work (a thin blue line where the white of the picture
meets the black of the felt) might still be evident when i use it
focused at infinity.


Yep, it will probably still be there. Best idea is to sell that lens on
ebay and get somethine better for landscape use!

--

Stacey

On 2/1/2004 10:49 AM Stacey spake thus:

Dr. Slick wrote:

So i suppose i could keep my Schneider for stuff in the distance,
landscapes and such, but it would seem to me that the "prism" effect i
get doing copy work (a thin blue line where the white of the picture
meets the black of the felt) might still be evident when i use it
focused at infinity.

Yep, it will probably still be there. Best idea is to sell that lens on
ebay and get somethine better for landscape use!

Yes, like the venerable (and cheaply available) Kodak Ektar 127mm.


--
It's stupid, moronic and too fcuking obvious, as obvious as counting your
fingers, so TELL ME SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW or just shut the fcuk up.

- "jjs" in extremis on rec.photo.darkroom