On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 14:25:34 +0000, Keith Tapscott. wrote:
For my 8x10 Camera, I am considering a 210mm Angulon (not
super-angulon).
How well do these lenses perform provided they are in fine condition?
Had a friend who used it as his prime lens for all his 8x10 fine art b/w landscape work. Excellent lens. However, if it's an uncoated model, don't use it for color. The extra flare will cause color casts. For b&w work, no problems, but I suggest that you use b&w contrast filters to reduce overall flare and improve image contrast.
You might also consider a Fujinon W 250 f6.7 (not the 6.3 model). It's a modern, computer designed, multicoated lens with 80+ degree coverage (about the same as the Angulons) that hit the US market about 30 years ago. As far as I know, it's not made anymore, but you can find them used. Excellent lens as were and are all the Fujinons.
Thor Lancelot Simon 16 March 2009 21:09:31 [ permanent link ]
In article <HxSul.15828$DP1.11824@attbi_s22>, erie patsellis <erie@eriepatsellis.com> wrote:
They are stellar performers optically
I have to agree that the 210mm examples are at least better than the appalling 120mm Angulons. But Schneider's quality control left a *lot* to be desired at the time when these lenses were made. Be careful, if buying an Angulon (not a Super Angulon) that the actual lens *you* get is a "stellar performer optically", not just some other Angulon you have seen in someone else's camera bag.
-- Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "Even experienced UNIX users occasionally enter rm *.* at the UNIX prompt only to realize too late that they have removed the wrong segment of the directory structure." - Microsoft WSS whitepaper
-- Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "Even experienced UNIX users occasionally enter rm *.* at the UNIX prompt only to realize too late that they have removed the wrong segment of the directory structure." - Microsoft WSS whitepaper
Lawrence Akutagawa 17 March 2009 01:34:58 [ permanent link ]
"Thor Lancelot Simon" <tls@panix.com> wrote in message news:gpm4kr$ndt$1@reader1.panix.com...
In article <HxSul.15828$DP1.11824@attbi_s22>,
erie patsellis <erie@eriepatsellis.com> wrote:
They are stellar performers optically
I have to agree that the 210mm examples are at least better than the
appalling 120mm Angulons. But Schneider's quality control left a *lot*
to be desired at the time when these lenses were made. Be careful, if
buying an Angulon (not a Super Angulon) that the actual lens *you* get
is a "stellar performer optically", not just some other Angulon you have
seen in someone else's camera bag.
As I recall, in years past there was a belief that the Linhof folks had the pick of the Schneider lenses, especially the Angulons. Such lenses bear the Linhof name inscribed on them.
Thor Lancelot Simon 17 March 2009 01:34:58 [ permanent link ]
In article <iPBvl.21381$c45.5630@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>, Lawrence Akutagawa <lakuNOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Thor Lancelot Simon" <tls@panix.com> wrote in message
news:gpm4kr$ndt$1@reader1.panix.com...
In article <HxSul.15828$DP1.11824@attbi_s22>,
erie patsellis <erie@eriepatsellis.com> wrote:
They are stellar performers optically
I have to agree that the 210mm examples are at least better than the
appalling 120mm Angulons. But Schneider's quality control left a *lot*
to be desired at the time when these lenses were made. Be careful, if
buying an Angulon (not a Super Angulon) that the actual lens *you* get
is a "stellar performer optically", not just some other Angulon you have
seen in someone else's camera bag.
As I recall, in years past there was a belief that the Linhof folks had the
pick of the Schneider lenses, especially the Angulons. Such lenses bear the
Linhof name inscribed on them.
I had a Linhof-branded 90mm Angulon which was a total dog, FWIW.
-- Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "Even experienced UNIX users occasionally enter rm *.* at the UNIX prompt only to realize too late that they have removed the wrong segment of the directory structure." - Microsoft WSS whitepaper
I've a great deal of respect for Christopher Perez. IMHO, he is thorough, thoughtful and quite clear in his methodology. (I'm not so nutz for is former enthusiasm for the Ducati motorcycle, but I'm required to say that. He made me do it. And I crashed.)
To me, the important point in those threads to this thread is age and use of the lens - regardless of how good a lens might be when brand-new, a used lens is an unknown. We cannot know how it was used, cared-for, or stored.
I have a Zeiss Planar 135mm f3.5 that I took from a Linhof aerial camera that came from Lockheed's Skunk Works. While the names Linhof, and Skunk Works rings lots of bells with techies, the lens is old, and by the looks of the camera body it was thoroughly used. I would presume nothing from the legacy of Linhof for a used lens.
(BTW, the mount for the Planar 135mm for the aerial Linhof is different from that for the Technika which makes it impossible 'as-is' to fold into the camera.)
Thor Lancelot Simon 18 March 2009 04:58:37 [ permanent link ]
In article <a16e61f0-de11-4f45-86de-858256ef7041@y13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Peter <w2tga@hotmail.com> wrote:
I agree with observation that when a Linhof tested lens acquires the
Linhof trademark it meets a high standard. I also agree that
subsequent use may invalidate any test. May I also add that Linhof
has done different tests over the years.
Clearly, when testing old lenses (say, early '50s) the performance
expected was different and so were the tests. The Linhof mark on
older lenses is still noteworthy; merely note that it may vouch for a
different level of performance.
Frankly, I think you've fallen for the hype.
There are many, many really awful Angulons out there. Some carry the Linhof name; some don't. But when they were made, there were other manufacturers doing far ore rigorous quality control on their large format optics -- you will not hear tales, for example, of "really awful" Wide Field Ektars and it's quite uncommon to run into a bad WF Dagor or other contemporary lenses meant for applications similar to the Angulon.
It's not hard use -- other old lenses have been used hard too -- it's that, at the time and evidently still now, people fell for some kind of mystique of Teutonic Precision and overlooked poor quality control for fundamentally emotional, not rational, reasons.
-- Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "Even experienced UNIX users occasionally enter rm *.* at the UNIX prompt only to realize too late that they have removed the wrong segment of the directory structure." - Microsoft WSS whitepaper
On Mar 17, 9:58pm, t...@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
In article <a16e61f0-de11-4f45-86de-858256ef7...@y13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Peter <w2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I agree with observation that when a Linhof tested lens acquires the
Linhof trademark it meets a high standard. I also agree that
subsequent use may invalidate any test. May I also add that Linhof
has done different tests over the years.
Clearly, when testing old lenses (say, early '50s) the performance
expected was different and so were the tests. The Linhof mark on
older lenses is still noteworthy; merely note that it may vouch for a
different level of performance.
Frankly, I think you've fallen for the hype.
There are many, many really awful Angulons out there. Some carry the
Linhof name; some don't. But when they were made, there were other
manufacturers doing far ore rigorous quality control on their large
format optics -- you will not hear tales, for example, of "really awful"
Wide Field Ektars and it's quite uncommon to run into a bad WF Dagor or
other contemporary lenses meant for applications similar to the Angulon.
It's not hard use -- other old lenses have been used hard too -- it's
that, at the time and evidently still now, people fell for some kind of
mystique of Teutonic Precision and overlooked poor quality control for
fundamentally emotional, not rational, reasons.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@rek.tjls.com
"Even experienced UNIX users occasionally enter rm *.* at the UNIX
prompt only to realize too late that they have removed the wrong
segment of the directory structure." - Microsoft WSS whitepaper
As I understood the situation we were discussing Angulons. Linhof's tests have always been further assurance that a high standard of quality is met for a new lens, at the time it is tested. I have the same impression that you do that some others may have maintained a higher standard for other lenses, but that wasn't my topic. I also noted that over time the definition of Linhof's "high standard" seems to have developed.
I also mentioned and still maintain that when committing to purchase a used lens it is better to actually test it yourself, before committing to purchase. I think it is generally a good practice, but also a good practice for Angulons. That said, I have been lucky and found some pretty good ones. (I have found quite a few "awful" Symmars.)
Thor Lancelot Simon 18 March 2009 18:19:05 [ permanent link ]
In article <555f4110-9456-427f-8062-b4e9c2b57bd0@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, Peter <w2tga@hotmail.com> wrote:
As I understood the situation we were discussing Angulons. Linhof's
tests have always been further assurance that a high standard of
quality is met for a new lens, at the time it is tested.
I just don't buy it -- I have owned a 90mm Angulon with Linhof markings which was terrible, and seen at least one each 120mm and 210mm Linhof- marked Angulon which were really not good. All these lenses were in fine physical condition to any cursory examination and in one case a non-cursory one: I had PCR check the centering of the 90mm example, which they said was fine (though also commenting that the lens seemed to have some serious sharpness problems at the edge of the field).
When you say "a high standard of quality", I assume you mean "a standard of quality comparable to that maintained by other top-tier lens manufacturers". Otherwise, how can we know what "high" is to mean? By any objective standard I find it hard to agree that the standard of quality Linhof applied when they were testing Angulons was "high".
I have seen descriptions of their later quality-control procedures and agree that they sound quite rigorous. Maybe they were afraid it would get around that they were letting awful lenses slip through and decided to step it up. There's really no way we can know, now.
-- Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "Even experienced UNIX users occasionally enter rm *.* at the UNIX prompt only to realize too late that they have removed the wrong segment of the directory structure." - Microsoft WSS whitepaper
No problem. Information is most important. I've been on a network messaging system of sone kind sice 1976. My skin is thick to whiners and you ain't one of 'em,.
Thanks for the info, Erie. You da man!
erie patsellis wrote:
I just hate scrolling all the way down on a 1600x1200 screen to see a
reply...
erie
John J wrote:
(sorry for top-posting, but it works better for Erie.)
Yes, it does fit a #3. Found a broken one and it screwed right in.
Whether the spacing is right or not - I'll find out!
j
erie patsellis wrote:
They might be worth a little effort, depends on if you have a 159mm
or thereabouts for the 8x10. Most likely the should screw right into
a Betax/Alphax shutter, likely a #3 what diameter and approx. pitch
are the threads?
erie
John J wrote:
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
I usually do not take lenses apart.
Jean-David:
I've two elements here of a Wollensak, Series IIIa, Ex WA, F/12.5
8x10. (Reading directly around the lens.) No shutter.
Does anyone have specs for the 'tween the lens mounting? I do have
several shutters ~#3 to use. Just never felt the need to go there.
I've no idea if this is worth a thing. What ya all think? Dog? Saint?
I use a Goerz ~180mm for 8x10 when I manage to shoot 8x10) and am
Thor Lancelot Simon 21 March 2009 18:37:43 [ permanent link ]
In article <YrmdncyFiKdy2FnUnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@supernews.com>, John J <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote:
No problem. Information is most important. I've been on a network
messaging system of sone kind sice 1976. My skin is thick to whiners and
you ain't one of 'em,.
So, you know, if you walk into a restaurant, and everyone is talking quietly, you probably have good enough manners to not start shouting even if that's what you'd do in a loud bar.
Good manners for *this* "network messaging system" require that you not top-post, and that you edit quoted material for relevance and respond inline and at the bottom -- not the top.
Please exhibit good manners when posting to Usenet henceforth, and remember that what constitutes good manners depends on where you happen to be and what conventions the people who were there before you happened to establish.
Thanks!
-- Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "Even experienced UNIX users occasionally enter rm *.* at the UNIX prompt only to realize too late that they have removed the wrong segment of the directory structure." - Microsoft WSS whitepaper
In article <YrmdncyFiKdy2FnUnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@supernews.com>,
John J <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote:
No problem. Information is most important. I've been on a network
messaging system of sone kind sice 1976. My skin is thick to whiners and
you ain't one of 'em,.
So, you know, if you walk into a restaurant, and everyone is talking
quietly, you probably have good enough manners to not start shouting
even if that's what you'd do in a loud bar.
Did I mess up somewhere?
Good manners for *this* "network messaging system" require that you not
top-post, and that you edit quoted material for relevance and respond
inline and at the bottom -- not the top.
Just for the record, I top-posted when I saw the author was Erie. I know Erie, and was trying to be accommodating to his top-post.
Please exhibit good manners when posting to Usenet henceforth, and
remember that what constitutes good manners depends on where you happen
to be and what conventions the people who were there before you happened
to establish.
Frankly, I do not believe I earned such a condescending message. I will look back to find if I did, indeed, mess up somewhere other than the one top-post to Erie.
As I wrote first, the good information I've found here for a very long time is very much appreciated, and I hope I have contributed with my admittedly modest LF expertise.
David Nebenzahl 21 March 2009 23:36:06 [ permanent link ]
On 3/21/2009 10:57 AM John J spake thus:
Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
In article <YrmdncyFiKdy2FnUnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@supernews.com>,
John J <nohj@droffats.ten> wrote:
No problem. Information is most important. I've been on a network
messaging system of sone kind sice 1976. My skin is thick to whiners and
you ain't one of 'em,.
So, you know, if you walk into a restaurant, and everyone is talking
quietly, you probably have good enough manners to not start shouting
even if that's what you'd do in a loud bar.
Did I mess up somewhere?
Good manners for *this* "network messaging system" require that you not
top-post, and that you edit quoted material for relevance and respond
inline and at the bottom -- not the top.
Just for the record, I top-posted when I saw the author was Erie. I know
Erie, and was trying to be accommodating to his top-post.
Why? You know what he did was wrong. You normally bottom-post yourself: why bend over to accommodate someone breaking protocol?
-- Made From Pears: Pretty good chance that the product is at least mostly pears. Made With Pears: Pretty good chance that pears will be detectable in the product. Contains Pears: One pear seed per multiple tons of product.
David Nebenzahl 22 March 2009 01:24:38 [ permanent link ]
On 3/21/2009 12:41 PM John J spake thus:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
Just for the record, I top-posted when I saw the author was Erie. I
know Erie, and was trying to be accommodating to his top-post.
Why? You know what he did was wrong. You normally bottom-post yourself:
why bend over to accommodate someone breaking protocol?
OK, I messed up. Let's not let this thread become unpleasant.
Today is our first warm day, snow is melting and I'm going to shoot some
8x10. Life is good.
Sounds good. Keep your powder--er, film, dry.
-- Made From Pears: Pretty good chance that the product is at least mostly pears. Made With Pears: Pretty good chance that pears will be detectable in the product. Contains Pears: One pear seed per multiple tons of product.
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please . Если Вы хотите пожаловаться на содержимое этой страницы, пожалуйста .
