Hologon

[Paul Friday]

Someone just mentioned the intentional nudge off-topic...

I just found a Fifth Edition copy of John Carroll's Photographic Lab
Handbook in the local old-book cave. There's a chapter at the back on
lens design and aberrations. In it he mentions the surprising results
from allowing a computer to vary the shape and thickness of lens
elements in a design. One unexpected outcome was the Hologon design,
that gave 110 degrees of view at a fixed F8. This was equivalent to a
15mm on a 35mm camera, so perhaps 28mm on 6x6?

I've seen a 35mm rangefinder lens on e-bay, and a couple of fixed-lens
Hologon cameras for 35mm. Does anyone know if there was a medium format
version of this lens?


--
----------------------------
Paul Friday

[Dr. Georg N.Nyman]

Yes and no - let me explain why I reply like this. The Hologon has got a
very unique design - one almost semicircle lens with a circle cavity as
front lens and a similar one towards the film plane. In the middle one
lens and no diaphragm - an extremely difficult to make one.
The design is brilliant but to manufacture it is a nightmare. It was
done only by Zeiss for their Hologon camera and for the Leica.
But there are similar designs existing which are based on the original
140degr Goertz Hypergon of 1900. That Hypergon has got two lenses which
are symmetrical to the center and are basically half-circles (this is
important for the aberrations). It has got a central diaphragm in the
middle of the lens, which is placed on the outside for a part of the
exposure time. This lens was designed for large format and once in a
blue moon, you can find such a lens for around $ 1500-3000 on eBay.
Some companies and designers used related designs and made lenses like
the Topogon or Metrogon type - not that spectacular in design but fully
functional and used mostly for areal photography. If you are looking at
design, the Hologon with its three lenses is absulutely unique and a
masterpiece of lens design and manufacturing.
Today, yes there are lenses available with extremly short focal lenght
as example from Schneider-Kreuznach for professional digital photography
with FL down to 24mm and almost APO correction. You can see them online
at their website.
If you have got more questions, email me unless you think that the forum
is interested in details as well.


Paul Friday wrote:
> Someone just mentioned the intentional nudge off-topic...
>
> I just found a Fifth Edition copy of John Carroll's Photographic Lab
> Handbook in the local old-book cave. There's a chapter at the back on
> lens design and aberrations. In it he mentions the surprising results
> from allowing a computer to vary the shape and thickness of lens
> elements in a design. One unexpected outcome was the Hologon design,
> that gave 110 degrees of view at a fixed F8. This was equivalent to a
> 15mm on a 35mm camera, so perhaps 28mm on 6x6?
>
> I've seen a 35mm rangefinder lens on e-bay, and a couple of fixed-lens
> Hologon cameras for 35mm. Does anyone know if there was a medium format
> version of this lens?
>
>

[Dr. Georg N.Nyman]

Yes and no - let me explain why I reply like this. The Hologon has got a
very unique design - one almost semicircle lens with a circle cavity as
front lens and a similar one towards the film plane. In the middle one
lens and no diaphragm - an extremely difficult to make one.
The design is brilliant but to manufacture it is a nightmare. It was
done only by Zeiss for their Hologon camera and for the Leica.
But there are similar designs existing which are based on the original
140degr Goertz Hypergon of 1900. That Hypergon has got two lenses which
are symmetrical to the center and are basically half-circles (this is
important for the aberrations). It has got a central diaphragm in the
middle of the lens, which is placed on the outside for a part of the
exposure time. This lens was designed for large format and once in a
blue moon, you can find such a lens for around $ 1500-3000 on eBay.
Some companies and designers used related designs and made lenses like
the Topogon or Metrogon type - not that spectacular in design but fully
functional and used mostly for areal photography. If you are looking at
design, the Hologon with its three lenses is absolutely unique and a
masterpiece of lens design and manufacturing.
Today, yes there are lenses available with extremly short focal lenght
as example from Schneider-Kreuznach for professional digital photography
with FL down to 24mm and almost APO correction. You can see them online
at their website.
If you have got more questions, email me unless you think that the forum
is interested in details as well.


Paul Friday wrote:
> Someone just mentioned the intentional nudge off-topic...
>
> I just found a Fifth Edition copy of John Carroll's Photographic Lab
> Handbook in the local old-book cave. There's a chapter at the back on
> lens design and aberrations. In it he mentions the surprising results
> from allowing a computer to vary the shape and thickness of lens
> elements in a design. One unexpected outcome was the Hologon design,
> that gave 110 degrees of view at a fixed F8. This was equivalent to a
> 15mm on a 35mm camera, so perhaps 28mm on 6x6?
>
> I've seen a 35mm rangefinder lens on e-bay, and a couple of fixed-lens
> Hologon cameras for 35mm. Does anyone know if there was a medium format
> version of this lens?
>
>

[Dr. Georg N.Nyman]

Yes and no - let me explain why I reply like this. The Hologon has got a
very unique design - one almost semicircle lens with a circle cavity as
front lens and a similar one towards the film plane. In the middle one
lens and no diaphragm - an extremely difficult to make one.
The design is brilliant but to manufacture it is a nightmare. It was
done only by Zeiss for their Hologon camera and for the Leica.
But there are similar designs existing which are based on the original
140degr Goertz Hypergon of 1900. That Hypergon has got two lenses which
are symmetrical to the center and are basically half-circles (this is
important for the aberrations). It has got a central diaphragm in the
middle of the lens, which is placed on the outside for a part of the
exposure time. This lens was designed for large format and once in a
blue moon, you can find such a lens for around $ 1500-3000 on eBay.
Some companies and designers used related designs and made lenses like
the Topogon or Metrogon type - not that spectacular in design but fully
functional and used mostly for areal photography. If you are looking at
design, the Hologon with its three lenses is absolutely unique and a
masterpiece of lens design and manufacturing.
Today, yes there are lenses available with extremly short focal lenght
as example from Schneider-Kreuznach for professional digital photography
with FL down to 24mm and almost APO correction. You can see them online
at their website.
If you have got more questions, email me unless you think that the forum
is interested in details as well.


Paul Friday wrote:
> Someone just mentioned the intentional nudge off-topic...
>
> I just found a Fifth Edition copy of John Carroll's Photographic Lab
> Handbook in the local old-book cave. There's a chapter at the back on
> lens design and aberrations. In it he mentions the surprising results
> from allowing a computer to vary the shape and thickness of lens
> elements in a design. One unexpected outcome was the Hologon design,
> that gave 110 degrees of view at a fixed F8. This was equivalent to a
> 15mm on a 35mm camera, so perhaps 28mm on 6x6?
>
> I've seen a 35mm rangefinder lens on e-bay, and a couple of fixed-lens
> Hologon cameras for 35mm. Does anyone know if there was a medium format
> version of this lens?
>
>

[Dr. Georg N.Nyman]

Yes and no - let me explain why I reply like this. The Hologon has got a
very unique design - one almost semicircle lens with a circle cavity as
front lens and a similar one towards the film plane. In the middle one
lens and no diaphragm - an extremely difficult to make one.
The design is brilliant but to manufacture it is a nightmare. It was
done only by Zeiss for their Hologon camera and for the Leica.
But there are similar designs existing which are based on the original
140degr Goertz Hypergon of 1900. That Hypergon has got two lenses which
are symmetrical to the center and are basically half-circles (this is
important for the aberrations). It has got a central diaphragm in the
middle of the lens, which is placed on the outside for a part of the
exposure time. This lens was designed for large format and once in a
blue moon, you can find such a lens for around $ 1500-3000 on eBay.
Some companies and designers used related designs and made lenses like
the Topogon or Metrogon type - not that spectacular in design but fully
functional and used mostly for areal photography. If you are looking at
design, the Hologon with its three lenses is absolutely unique and a
masterpiece of lens design and manufacturing.
Today, yes there are lenses available with extremly short focal lengths
as example from Schneider-Kreuznach for professional digital photography
with FL down to 24mm and almost APO correction. You can see them online
at their website.
If you have got more questions, email me unless you think that the forum
is interested in details as well.


Paul Friday wrote:
> Someone just mentioned the intentional nudge off-topic...
>
> I just found a Fifth Edition copy of John Carroll's Photographic Lab
> Handbook in the local old-book cave. There's a chapter at the back on
> lens design and aberrations. In it he mentions the surprising results
> from allowing a computer to vary the shape and thickness of lens
> elements in a design. One unexpected outcome was the Hologon design,
> that gave 110 degrees of view at a fixed F8. This was equivalent to a
> 15mm on a 35mm camera, so perhaps 28mm on 6x6?
>
> I've seen a 35mm rangefinder lens on e-bay, and a couple of fixed-lens
> Hologon cameras for 35mm. Does anyone know if there was a medium format
> version of this lens?
>
>

[Dr. Georg N.Nyman]

Yes and no - let me explain why I reply like this. The Hologon has got a
very unique design - one almost semicircle lens with a circle cavity as
front lens and a similar one towards the film plane. In the middle one
lens and no diaphragm - an extremely difficult to make one.
The design is brilliant but to manufacture it is a nightmare. It was
done only by Zeiss for their Hologon camera and for the Leica.
But there are similar designs existing which are based on the original
140degr Goertz Hypergon of 1900. That Hypergon has got two lenses which
are symmetrical to the center and are basically half-circles (this is
important for the aberrations). It has got a central diaphragm in the
middle of the lens, which is placed on the outside for a part of the
exposure time. This lens was designed for large format and once in a
blue moon, you can find such a lens for around $ 1500-3000 on eBay.
Some companies and designers used related designs and made lenses like
the Topogon or Metrogon type - not that spectacular in design but fully
functional and used mostly for areal photography. If you are looking at
design, the Hologon with its three lenses is absolutely unique and a
masterpiece of lens design and manufacturing.
Today, yes there are lenses available with extremly short focal lengths
as example from Schneider-Kreuznach for professional digital photography
with FL down to 24mm and almost APO correction. You can see them online
at their website.
If you have got more questions, email me unless you think that the forum
is interested in details as well.


Paul Friday wrote:
> Someone just mentioned the intentional nudge off-topic...
>
> I just found a Fifth Edition copy of John Carroll's Photographic Lab
> Handbook in the local old-book cave. There's a chapter at the back on
> lens design and aberrations. In it he mentions the surprising results
> from allowing a computer to vary the shape and thickness of lens
> elements in a design. One unexpected outcome was the Hologon design,
> that gave 110 degrees of view at a fixed F8. This was equivalent to a
> 15mm on a 35mm camera, so perhaps 28mm on 6x6?
>
> I've seen a 35mm rangefinder lens on e-bay, and a couple of fixed-lens
> Hologon cameras for 35mm. Does anyone know if there was a medium format
> version of this lens?
>
>

[Bob Salomon]

In article >,
"Dr. Georg N.Nyman" > wrote:

> Today, yes there are lenses available with extremly short focal lenght
> as example from Schneider-Kreuznach for professional digital photography
> with FL down to 24mm and almost APO correction.

Another is the 28mm Apo Sironar Digital as well as the 35mm Digital and
the Apo Sironar Digital HR.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

[Dr. Georg N.Nyman]

I forgot to mention a modified version of the Hologon design - the new
16/f:8 version of it for the Contax G. This design is included now 5
elements instead of three. This change ( the front element was split
into two and the center element was split into two ) made it more or
less manufacturable at more reasonable cost.
Important to mention - all of these designs are of course non-retrofocus
type, which means that there BFD (back focal distance) is very very short.


Paul Friday wrote:
> Someone just mentioned the intentional nudge off-topic...
>
> I just found a Fifth Edition copy of John Carroll's Photographic Lab
> Handbook in the local old-book cave. There's a chapter at the back on
> lens design and aberrations. In it he mentions the surprising results
> from allowing a computer to vary the shape and thickness of lens
> elements in a design. One unexpected outcome was the Hologon design,
> that gave 110 degrees of view at a fixed F8. This was equivalent to a
> 15mm on a 35mm camera, so perhaps 28mm on 6x6?
>
> I've seen a 35mm rangefinder lens on e-bay, and a couple of fixed-lens
> Hologon cameras for 35mm. Does anyone know if there was a medium format
> version of this lens?
>
>

[Dr. Georg N.Nyman]

I forgot to mention a modified version of the Hologon design - the new
16/f:8 version of it for the Contax G. This design is included now 5
elements instead of three. This change ( the front element was split
into two and the center element was split into two ) made it more or
less manufacturable at more reasonable cost.
Important to mention - all of these designs are of course non-retrofocus
type, which means that there BFD (back focal distance) is very very short.


Paul Friday wrote:
> Someone just mentioned the intentional nudge off-topic...
>
> I just found a Fifth Edition copy of John Carroll's Photographic Lab
> Handbook in the local old-book cave. There's a chapter at the back on
> lens design and aberrations. In it he mentions the surprising results
> from allowing a computer to vary the shape and thickness of lens
> elements in a design. One unexpected outcome was the Hologon design,
> that gave 110 degrees of view at a fixed F8. This was equivalent to a
> 15mm on a 35mm camera, so perhaps 28mm on 6x6?
>
> I've seen a 35mm rangefinder lens on e-bay, and a couple of fixed-lens
> Hologon cameras for 35mm. Does anyone know if there was a medium format
> version of this lens?
>
>

[Dr. Georg N.Nyman]

I forgot to mention a modified version of the Hologon design - the new
16/f:8 version of it for the Contax G. This design is including now 5
elements instead of three. This change ( the front element was split
into two and the center element was split into two ) made it more or
less manufacturable at more reasonable cost.
Important to mention - all of these designs are of course non-retrofocus
type, which means that there BFD (back focal distance) is very very short.


Paul Friday wrote:
> Someone just mentioned the intentional nudge off-topic...
>
> I just found a Fifth Edition copy of John Carroll's Photographic Lab
> Handbook in the local old-book cave. There's a chapter at the back on
> lens design and aberrations. In it he mentions the surprising results
> from allowing a computer to vary the shape and thickness of lens
> elements in a design. One unexpected outcome was the Hologon design,
> that gave 110 degrees of view at a fixed F8. This was equivalent to a
> 15mm on a 35mm camera, so perhaps 28mm on 6x6?
>
> I've seen a 35mm rangefinder lens on e-bay, and a couple of fixed-lens
> Hologon cameras for 35mm. Does anyone know if there was a medium format
> version of this lens?
>
>

[Dr. Georg N.Nyman]

I forgot to mention a modified version of the Hologon design - the new
16/f:8 version of it for the Contax G. This design is including now 5
elements instead of three. This change ( the front element was split
into two and the center element was split into two ) made it more or
less manufacturable at more reasonable cost.
Important to mention - all of these designs are of course non-retrofocus
type, which means that there BFD (back focal distance) is very very short.


Paul Friday wrote:
> Someone just mentioned the intentional nudge off-topic...
>
> I just found a Fifth Edition copy of John Carroll's Photographic Lab
> Handbook in the local old-book cave. There's a chapter at the back on
> lens design and aberrations. In it he mentions the surprising results
> from allowing a computer to vary the shape and thickness of lens
> elements in a design. One unexpected outcome was the Hologon design,
> that gave 110 degrees of view at a fixed F8. This was equivalent to a
> 15mm on a 35mm camera, so perhaps 28mm on 6x6?
>
> I've seen a 35mm rangefinder lens on e-bay, and a couple of fixed-lens
> Hologon cameras for 35mm. Does anyone know if there was a medium format
> version of this lens?
>
>

[Paul Friday]

In message >, Dr. Georg N.Nyman
> writes
>If you have got more questions, email me unless you think that the
>forum
>is interested in details as well.

Thanks for the information. I was just curious, as I hadn't seen such an
economical design before.
For the (cough) 'smaller than MF' camera, I have a Pentax rectilinear
15mm lens. This is a wonderful lump of glass, and it even has a
diaphragm! I bought it very cheaply many years ago, from a major camera
chain dealer who had ordered one in for a customer who didn't buy it.
But back to the real world of negatives you can read with both eyes,
I'll be shopping for one of the Russian 30mm lenses soon.
--
----------------------------
Paul Friday

[Lassi Hippeläinen]

Paul Friday kirjoitti:
> Someone just mentioned the intentional nudge off-topic...
>
> I just found a Fifth Edition copy of John Carroll's Photographic Lab
> Handbook in the local old-book cave. There's a chapter at the back on
> lens design and aberrations. In it he mentions the surprising results
> from allowing a computer to vary the shape and thickness of lens
> elements in a design. One unexpected outcome was the Hologon design,
> that gave 110 degrees of view at a fixed F8. This was equivalent to a
> 15mm on a 35mm camera, so perhaps 28mm on 6x6?
>
> I've seen a 35mm rangefinder lens on e-bay, and a couple of fixed-lens
> Hologon cameras for 35mm. Does anyone know if there was a medium format
> version of this lens?

Never heard of. The nearest thing that comes to mind is the Biogon that
is sold as Hasselblad SWC. It's a lens with film magazine rails in the
place of a mounting bayonet. But a Biogon isn't a Hologon.

-- Lassi

[Lassi Hippeläinen]

Paul Friday kirjoitti:
> Someone just mentioned the intentional nudge off-topic...
>
> I just found a Fifth Edition copy of John Carroll's Photographic Lab
> Handbook in the local old-book cave. There's a chapter at the back on
> lens design and aberrations. In it he mentions the surprising results
> from allowing a computer to vary the shape and thickness of lens
> elements in a design. One unexpected outcome was the Hologon design,
> that gave 110 degrees of view at a fixed F8. This was equivalent to a
> 15mm on a 35mm camera, so perhaps 28mm on 6x6?
>
> I've seen a 35mm rangefinder lens on e-bay, and a couple of fixed-lens
> Hologon cameras for 35mm. Does anyone know if there was a medium format
> version of this lens?

Never heard of. The nearest thing that comes to mind is the Biogon that
is sold as Hasselblad SWC. It's a lens with film magazine rails in the
place of a mounting bayonet. But a Biogon isn't a Hologon.

-- Lassi

[Lassi Hippeläinen]

Dr. Georg N.Nyman kirjoitti:
<...>
> Some companies and designers used related designs and made lenses like
> the Topogon or Metrogon type - not that spectacular in design but fully
> functional and used mostly for areal photography.

Wasn't the Topogon another Zeiss lens? The Soviet Orion-15 (28mm/f:6)
and Russar MR-2 (20mm/f:5.6) are Topogon designs. They have good
reputation, if you can live with the small aperture. They even have
aperture control, because the 4/4 design puts the optical centre in free
air, not inside glass. But they aren't as short as the Hologon.

Just speculating: Hologon could have started as a Topogon with the
centre air gap and iris removed, and the rest squeezed together for as
short focal length as possible? Since architectural photographers (the
main market for Hologon) operate at or near sunny sixteen conditions,
they don't need aperture control. Shutter speed range gives them enough
exposure control.

<...>
> Today, yes there are lenses available with extremly short focal lengths
> as example from Schneider-Kreuznach for professional digital photography
> with FL down to 24mm and almost APO correction. You can see them online
> at their website.

The Cosina/Voigtländer lenses are pretty short, but they aren't Hologons.

-- Lassi

[Lassi Hippeläinen]

Dr. Georg N.Nyman kirjoitti:
<...>
> Some companies and designers used related designs and made lenses like
> the Topogon or Metrogon type - not that spectacular in design but fully
> functional and used mostly for areal photography.

Wasn't the Topogon another Zeiss lens? The Soviet Orion-15 (28mm/f:6)
and Russar MR-2 (20mm/f:5.6) are Topogon designs. They have good
reputation, if you can live with the small aperture. They even have
aperture control, because the 4/4 design puts the optical centre in free
air, not inside glass. But they aren't as short as the Hologon.

Just speculating: Hologon could have started as a Topogon with the
centre air gap and iris removed, and the rest squeezed together for as
short focal length as possible? Since architectural photographers (the
main market for Hologon) operate at or near sunny sixteen conditions,
they don't need aperture control. Shutter speed range gives them enough
exposure control.

<...>
> Today, yes there are lenses available with extremly short focal lengths
> as example from Schneider-Kreuznach for professional digital photography
> with FL down to 24mm and almost APO correction. You can see them online
> at their website.

The Cosina/Voigtländer lenses are pretty short, but they aren't Hologons.

-- Lassi

[Lassi Hippeläinen]

Dr. Georg N.Nyman kirjoitti:
> I forgot to mention a modified version of the Hologon design - the new
> 16/f:8 version of it for the Contax G. This design is including now 5
> elements instead of three. This change ( the front element was split
> into two and the center element was split into two ) made it more or
> less manufacturable at more reasonable cost.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/speciallenses/contax_hologon.htm

The new lens looks quite different from the old one.

-- Lassi

[Lassi Hippeläinen]

Dr. Georg N.Nyman kirjoitti:
> I forgot to mention a modified version of the Hologon design - the new
> 16/f:8 version of it for the Contax G. This design is including now 5
> elements instead of three. This change ( the front element was split
> into two and the center element was split into two ) made it more or
> less manufacturable at more reasonable cost.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/speciallenses/contax_hologon.htm

The new lens looks quite different from the old one.

-- Lassi

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

Alvin Yap > wrote:

> Good day everyone!
> I am curious, what are the differences between retrofocus (slrs?) verus
> non-retrofocus types (which I guess mostly found in rangefinder type
> cameras? Is it simply non-retrofocus or is there another term?)

The non-retrofocus versions are often referred to as symmetrical. The
Topogon, the 'real' Hologon, and the original 21 mm Biogon (Contax
rangefinders, Contarex SLR) were indeed symmetrical designs and so is
the Biogon of the Hasselblad SWC.

This distinction is, however, more than a little misleading as there are
a lot of non-symmetrical non-retrofocus formulas.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated April 29, 2004
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

Alvin Yap > wrote:

> Good day everyone!
> I am curious, what are the differences between retrofocus (slrs?) verus
> non-retrofocus types (which I guess mostly found in rangefinder type
> cameras? Is it simply non-retrofocus or is there another term?)

The non-retrofocus versions are often referred to as symmetrical. The
Topogon, the 'real' Hologon, and the original 21 mm Biogon (Contax
rangefinders, Contarex SLR) were indeed symmetrical designs and so is
the Biogon of the Hasselblad SWC.

This distinction is, however, more than a little misleading as there are
a lot of non-symmetrical non-retrofocus formulas.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated April 29, 2004
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

[Q.G. de Bakker]

Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:

> The non-retrofocus versions are often referred to as symmetrical. The
> Topogon, the 'real' Hologon, and the original 21 mm Biogon (Contax
> rangefinders, Contarex SLR) were indeed symmetrical designs and so is
> the Biogon of the Hasselblad SWC.

The "original" Biogon started life as a spectacularly unsymmetrical lens (a
Sonnar derivative).

The "second coming" (which includes the 21 mm and the SWC's lens), based on
the Aviogon, was more symmetrical. But even today, the 38 mm Biogon is not
completely symmetrical.

But i know: you were using the word "original" to distinguish between early
and late 21 mm Biogons.
Just wanted to remind us that there are "originals" that are more "original"
than the ones called "the original", lest noone mistakes "the original" for
the "original" "original". ;-)

On the topic of names: i think it would be better to refer to non-retrofocus
short focal length lenses as "non-retrofocus short focal length lenses", or
even "true wide angles", since they need not be symmetrical.

[Q.G. de Bakker]

Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:

> The non-retrofocus versions are often referred to as symmetrical. The
> Topogon, the 'real' Hologon, and the original 21 mm Biogon (Contax
> rangefinders, Contarex SLR) were indeed symmetrical designs and so is
> the Biogon of the Hasselblad SWC.

The "original" Biogon started life as a spectacularly unsymmetrical lens (a
Sonnar derivative).

The "second coming" (which includes the 21 mm and the SWC's lens), based on
the Aviogon, was more symmetrical. But even today, the 38 mm Biogon is not
completely symmetrical.

But i know: you were using the word "original" to distinguish between early
and late 21 mm Biogons.
Just wanted to remind us that there are "originals" that are more "original"
than the ones called "the original", lest noone mistakes "the original" for
the "original" "original". ;-)

On the topic of names: i think it would be better to refer to non-retrofocus
short focal length lenses as "non-retrofocus short focal length lenses", or
even "true wide angles", since they need not be symmetrical.

[Lassi Hippeläinen]

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
<...>
> On the topic of names: i think it would be better to refer to non-retrofocus
> short focal length lenses as "non-retrofocus short focal length lenses", or
> even "true wide angles", since they need not be symmetrical.

The classification I have seen is 'straight', 'tele', and 'retro'. The
lines between them are fuzzy. Even good old Tessar is in a sense a
retrofocus design, even though the term appeared only in the fifties,
when Angenieux launched it.

-- Lassi

[Lassi Hippeläinen]

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
<...>
> On the topic of names: i think it would be better to refer to non-retrofocus
> short focal length lenses as "non-retrofocus short focal length lenses", or
> even "true wide angles", since they need not be symmetrical.

The classification I have seen is 'straight', 'tele', and 'retro'. The
lines between them are fuzzy. Even good old Tessar is in a sense a
retrofocus design, even though the term appeared only in the fifties,
when Angenieux launched it.

-- Lassi

[Chris Brown]

In article >,
Lassi Hippeläinen > wrote:
>
>Never heard of. The nearest thing that comes to mind is the Biogon that
>is sold as Hasselblad SWC.

AIUI, the Mamiya 7's 43mm ultra wide is also a clone of the Biogon design.

[Chris Brown]

In article >,
Dr. Georg N.Nyman > wrote:
>In addition to the already given answer I would like to add that the
>retrofocus lenses have got their name from the principle of an inverted
>telephoto design - which allows a long back focal distance BFD. This is
>necessary to bridge the optically long distance from the rear lens to
>the film plane due to the mirror housing of SLR's.

They're arguably also needed with digital cameras, as there are supposedly
incident angle difficulties with digital sensors if a non-retrofocal wide
angle design is used.

[Chris Brown]

In article >,
Dr. Georg N.Nyman > wrote:
>In addition to the already given answer I would like to add that the
>retrofocus lenses have got their name from the principle of an inverted
>telephoto design - which allows a long back focal distance BFD. This is
>necessary to bridge the optically long distance from the rear lens to
>the film plane due to the mirror housing of SLR's.

They're arguably also needed with digital cameras, as there are supposedly
incident angle difficulties with digital sensors if a non-retrofocal wide
angle design is used.

[Chris Brown]

In article >,
Lassi Hippeläinen > wrote:
>
>Never heard of. The nearest thing that comes to mind is the Biogon that
>is sold as Hasselblad SWC.

AIUI, the Mamiya 7's 43mm ultra wide is also a clone of the Biogon design.

[Bandicoot]

"Paul Friday" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Dr. Georg N.Nyman
> > writes
> >If you have got more questions, email me unless you think that the
> >forum
> >is interested in details as well.
>
> Thanks for the information. I was just curious, as I hadn't seen such an
> economical design before.
> For the (cough) 'smaller than MF' camera, I have a Pentax rectilinear
> 15mm lens. This is a wonderful lump of glass, and it even has a
> diaphragm! I bought it very cheaply many years ago, from a major
> camera chain dealer who had ordered one in for a customer who didn't
> buy it. But back to the real world of negatives you can read with both
> eyes, I'll be shopping for one of the Russian 30mm lenses soon.

I have that Pentax 15mm lens too - and it is indeed wonderful. I also have
that Ukrainian 30mm lens for MF - it isn't nearly as sharp as the Pentax,
and obviously the coating is nowhere near as good, but of course 6x6 vs.
35mm more than makes up for that.

I wish I could get for 6x6 a rectilinear lens that was as good as that
Pentax 15mm. My Schneider 38mm SA XL would be its equivalent on 6x9 if 6x9
was really 90mm long, but of course it isn't (and I can't afford a 35mm
Grandagon...)



Peter

[Bandicoot]

"Paul Friday" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Dr. Georg N.Nyman
> > writes
> >If you have got more questions, email me unless you think that the
> >forum
> >is interested in details as well.
>
> Thanks for the information. I was just curious, as I hadn't seen such an
> economical design before.
> For the (cough) 'smaller than MF' camera, I have a Pentax rectilinear
> 15mm lens. This is a wonderful lump of glass, and it even has a
> diaphragm! I bought it very cheaply many years ago, from a major
> camera chain dealer who had ordered one in for a customer who didn't
> buy it. But back to the real world of negatives you can read with both
> eyes, I'll be shopping for one of the Russian 30mm lenses soon.

I have that Pentax 15mm lens too - and it is indeed wonderful. I also have
that Ukrainian 30mm lens for MF - it isn't nearly as sharp as the Pentax,
and obviously the coating is nowhere near as good, but of course 6x6 vs.
35mm more than makes up for that.

I wish I could get for 6x6 a rectilinear lens that was as good as that
Pentax 15mm. My Schneider 38mm SA XL would be its equivalent on 6x9 if 6x9
was really 90mm long, but of course it isn't (and I can't afford a 35mm
Grandagon...)



Peter

[jjs]

"Bandicoot" >
> I wish I could get for 6x6 a rectilinear lens that was as good as that
> Pentax 15mm. My Schneider 38mm SA XL would be its equivalent on 6x9 if
> 6x9
> was really 90mm long, but of course it isn't (and I can't afford a 35mm
> Grandagon...)

Ah, you have that lens! You are so close to ideal. Have you looked into the
Silvestri, or a custom made 6x12?

[jjs]

"Bandicoot" >
> I wish I could get for 6x6 a rectilinear lens that was as good as that
> Pentax 15mm. My Schneider 38mm SA XL would be its equivalent on 6x9 if
> 6x9
> was really 90mm long, but of course it isn't (and I can't afford a 35mm
> Grandagon...)

Ah, you have that lens! You are so close to ideal. Have you looked into the
Silvestri, or a custom made 6x12?

[David J. Littleboy]

"Chris Brown" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Dr. Georg N.Nyman > wrote:
> >In addition to the already given answer I would like to add that the
> >retrofocus lenses have got their name from the principle of an inverted
> >telephoto design - which allows a long back focal distance BFD. This is
> >necessary to bridge the optically long distance from the rear lens to
> >the film plane due to the mirror housing of SLR's.
>
> They're arguably also needed with digital cameras, as there are supposedly
> incident angle difficulties with digital sensors if a non-retrofocal wide
> angle design is used.

Yep. Here's the first report that I've seen actually showing that.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml

On the other hand, digital sensors do not have film flatness issues<g>, and
that's an enormous advantage for wide angle work.

Question: my understanding is that retrofocus designs have less light
falloff than straight designs. Is that correct???

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

[David J. Littleboy]

"Chris Brown" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Dr. Georg N.Nyman > wrote:
> >In addition to the already given answer I would like to add that the
> >retrofocus lenses have got their name from the principle of an inverted
> >telephoto design - which allows a long back focal distance BFD. This is
> >necessary to bridge the optically long distance from the rear lens to
> >the film plane due to the mirror housing of SLR's.
>
> They're arguably also needed with digital cameras, as there are supposedly
> incident angle difficulties with digital sensors if a non-retrofocal wide
> angle design is used.

Yep. Here's the first report that I've seen actually showing that.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml

On the other hand, digital sensors do not have film flatness issues<g>, and
that's an enormous advantage for wide angle work.

Question: my understanding is that retrofocus designs have less light
falloff than straight designs. Is that correct???

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

[Dan Fromm]

Bandicoot wrote:
> <snip>
> I have that Pentax 15mm lens too - and it is indeed wonderful. I
also have
> that Ukrainian 30mm lens for MF - it isn't nearly as sharp as the
Pentax,
> and obviously the coating is nowhere near as good, but of course 6x6
vs.
> 35mm more than makes up for that.
>
> I wish I could get for 6x6 a rectilinear lens that was as good as
that
> Pentax 15mm. My Schneider 38mm SA XL would be its equivalent on 6x9
if 6x9
> was really 90mm long, but of course it isn't (and I can't afford a
35mm
> Grandagon...)
>
>
>
> Peter

Remember that for most roll holders and all sheet film holders nominal
6x9's aspect ratio is 2:3, just like 35 mm. On a 57 mm x 82 mm nominal
6x9 roll holder (they exist, I have three), your 38 SA XL is equivalent
to a hair over 16 mm on 24 x 36. Pretty damn close to 15 mm. Are you
bragging or complaining?

Cheers,

Dan

[Q.G. de Bakker]

David J. Littleboy wrote:

> On the other hand, digital sensors do not have film flatness issues<g>,
and
> that's an enormous advantage for wide angle work.

It would be if (!) lenses produced a really flat field.

> Question: my understanding is that retrofocus designs have less light
> falloff than straight designs. Is that correct???

It is.

[Q.G. de Bakker]

David J. Littleboy wrote:

> On the other hand, digital sensors do not have film flatness issues<g>,
and
> that's an enormous advantage for wide angle work.

It would be if (!) lenses produced a really flat field.

> Question: my understanding is that retrofocus designs have less light
> falloff than straight designs. Is that correct???

It is.

[Bandicoot]

"jjs" > wrote in message
...
> "Bandicoot" >
> > I wish I could get for 6x6 a rectilinear lens that was as good as that
> > Pentax 15mm. My Schneider 38mm SA XL would be its equivalent
> > on 6x9 if 6x9 was really 90mm long, but of course it isn't (and I can't
> > afford a 35mm Grandagon...)
>
> Ah, you have that lens! You are so close to ideal. Have you looked into
> the Silvestri, or a custom made 6x12?

Yes, it's a very nice lens. So far I've only used it on RFBs up to 6x9, but
I do intend to use it on 6x12. That probably means buying a 6x12 back, but
given what they seem to cost, I could shoot a lot of 4x5 sheets and just cut
them down to size before the 6x12 RFB would actually be saving me money!

I probably would look at a dedicated 6x12 body, like a Silvestri, for the
38mm, except that I want still to be able also to use it on my 6x9.


Peter

[Bandicoot]

"jjs" > wrote in message
...
> "Bandicoot" >
> > I wish I could get for 6x6 a rectilinear lens that was as good as that
> > Pentax 15mm. My Schneider 38mm SA XL would be its equivalent
> > on 6x9 if 6x9 was really 90mm long, but of course it isn't (and I can't
> > afford a 35mm Grandagon...)
>
> Ah, you have that lens! You are so close to ideal. Have you looked into
> the Silvestri, or a custom made 6x12?

Yes, it's a very nice lens. So far I've only used it on RFBs up to 6x9, but
I do intend to use it on 6x12. That probably means buying a 6x12 back, but
given what they seem to cost, I could shoot a lot of 4x5 sheets and just cut
them down to size before the 6x12 RFB would actually be saving me money!

I probably would look at a dedicated 6x12 body, like a Silvestri, for the
38mm, except that I want still to be able also to use it on my 6x9.


Peter

[Bandicoot]

"Dan Fromm" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Bandicoot wrote:
> > <snip>
> > I have that Pentax 15mm lens too - and it is indeed wonderful. I
> > also have that Ukrainian 30mm lens for MF - it isn't nearly as sharp as
> > the Pentax, and obviously the coating is nowhere near as good, but of
> > course 6x6 vs. 35mm more than makes up for that.
> >
> > I wish I could get for 6x6 a rectilinear lens that was as good as
> > that Pentax 15mm. My Schneider 38mm SA XL would be its
> > equivalent on 6x9 if 6x9 was really 90mm long, but of course it isn't
> > (and I can't afford a 35mm Grandagon...)
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter
>
> Remember that for most roll holders and all sheet film holders nominal
> 6x9's aspect ratio is 2:3, just like 35 mm. On a 57 mm x 82 mm
> nominal 6x9 roll holder (they exist, I have three), your 38 SA XL is
> equivalent to a hair over 16 mm on 24 x 36. Pretty damn close to
> 15mm. Are you bragging or complaining?

Well, neither, I hope!

Yes, I do have a couple of 6x9 film holders that are 82mm long, and I
suppose the 38mm used on those is indeed pretty close to the AoV of that
15mm lens used on 35mm. It's just that a couple of times I've wanted to get
something in when it just hasn't been quite wide enough, yet the 15mm was.
Maybe just my bad luck to have run into more than one of the 'almost but not
quite' situations recently....



Peter

[Bandicoot]

"Dan Fromm" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Bandicoot wrote:
> > <snip>
> > I have that Pentax 15mm lens too - and it is indeed wonderful. I
> > also have that Ukrainian 30mm lens for MF - it isn't nearly as sharp as
> > the Pentax, and obviously the coating is nowhere near as good, but of
> > course 6x6 vs. 35mm more than makes up for that.
> >
> > I wish I could get for 6x6 a rectilinear lens that was as good as
> > that Pentax 15mm. My Schneider 38mm SA XL would be its
> > equivalent on 6x9 if 6x9 was really 90mm long, but of course it isn't
> > (and I can't afford a 35mm Grandagon...)
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter
>
> Remember that for most roll holders and all sheet film holders nominal
> 6x9's aspect ratio is 2:3, just like 35 mm. On a 57 mm x 82 mm
> nominal 6x9 roll holder (they exist, I have three), your 38 SA XL is
> equivalent to a hair over 16 mm on 24 x 36. Pretty damn close to
> 15mm. Are you bragging or complaining?

Well, neither, I hope!

Yes, I do have a couple of 6x9 film holders that are 82mm long, and I
suppose the 38mm used on those is indeed pretty close to the AoV of that
15mm lens used on 35mm. It's just that a couple of times I've wanted to get
something in when it just hasn't been quite wide enough, yet the 15mm was.
Maybe just my bad luck to have run into more than one of the 'almost but not
quite' situations recently....



Peter

[Chris Brown]

In article >,
David J. Littleboy > wrote:
>
>"Chris Brown" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> They're arguably also needed with digital cameras, as there are supposedly
>> incident angle difficulties with digital sensors if a non-retrofocal wide
>> angle design is used.
>
>Yep. Here's the first report that I've seen actually showing that.
>
>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml

Hmm, nice to see that the 35mm f/2.5 Color Skopar comes out well. I have one
of those, and this means that it should continue to serve me well if I ever
get a digital rangefinder.

[Chris Brown]

In article >,
David J. Littleboy > wrote:
>
>"Chris Brown" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> They're arguably also needed with digital cameras, as there are supposedly
>> incident angle difficulties with digital sensors if a non-retrofocal wide
>> angle design is used.
>
>Yep. Here's the first report that I've seen actually showing that.
>
>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml

Hmm, nice to see that the 35mm f/2.5 Color Skopar comes out well. I have one
of those, and this means that it should continue to serve me well if I ever
get a digital rangefinder.

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

David J. Littleboy > wrote:

> Yep. Here's the first report that I've seen actually showing that.
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml

Quite interesting indeed.

"A certain amount of vignetting has been present in much of film
photography since it began."

While that is certainly true, people tend to forget that at least some
of this was compensated by vignetting from the enlarger lens.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated April 29, 2004
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

David J. Littleboy > wrote:

> Yep. Here's the first report that I've seen actually showing that.
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml

Quite interesting indeed.

"A certain amount of vignetting has been present in much of film
photography since it began."

While that is certainly true, people tend to forget that at least some
of this was compensated by vignetting from the enlarger lens.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated April 29, 2004
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

[jjs]

"Bandicoot" > wrote in message
...
> "jjs" > wrote in message
> ...

>> Ah, you have that lens! You are so close to ideal. Have you looked into
>> the Silvestri, or a custom made 6x12?
>
> Yes, it's a very nice lens. So far I've only used it on RFBs up to 6x9,
> but
> I do intend to use it on 6x12. That probably means buying a 6x12 back,
> but
> given what they seem to cost, I could shoot a lot of 4x5 sheets and just
> cut

True, and besides with 4x5 you do get a precious few cm more of vertical
coverage. I have a project on my bench to turn my 4x5 w/47mm SA to a
rollfilm back, but am hesitating for exactly the reasons you give.

[jjs]

"Bandicoot" > wrote in message
...
> Yes, I do have a couple of 6x9 film holders that are 82mm long, and I
> suppose the 38mm used on those is indeed pretty close to the AoV of that
> 15mm lens used on 35mm. It's just that a couple of times I've wanted to
> get
> something in when it just hasn't been quite wide enough, yet the 15mm was.
> Maybe just my bad luck to have run into more than one of the 'almost but
> not
> quite' situations recently....

I was looking at the Alpa super-wide with great interest until I got to the
rollfilm back issues. None that I found are 6x9. What's the rationale for
makers to skimp on the 9cm side? I was spoiled by having a Plaubel Veriwide
which was very happy with the full frame size of the Leitz Focoma IIa.

[Dan Fromm]

jjs wrote:
> "Bandicoot" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Yes, I do have a couple of 6x9 film holders that are 82mm long, and
I
> > suppose the 38mm used on those is indeed pretty close to the AoV of
that
> > 15mm lens used on 35mm. It's just that a couple of times I've
wanted to
> > get
> > something in when it just hasn't been quite wide enough, yet the
15mm was.
> > Maybe just my bad luck to have run into more than one of the
'almost but
> > not
> > quite' situations recently....
>
> I was looking at the Alpa super-wide with great interest until I got
to the
> rollfilm back issues. None that I found are 6x9. What's the rationale
for
> makers to skimp on the 9cm side? I was spoiled by having a Plaubel
Veriwide
> which was very happy with the full frame size of the Leitz Focoma
IIa.

Why skimp? But they don't. Its an American format. 2.25" x 3.25", to
give a 2:3 aspect ratio on 120 film. It is what it is, not the lousy
but easy to say metric approximation.

Cheers,

Dan

[Fernando]

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 10:41:10 -0600, "jjs" > wrote:

>True, and besides with 4x5 you do get a precious few cm more of vertical
>coverage. I have a project on my bench to turn my 4x5 w/47mm SA to a
>rollfilm back, but am hesitating for exactly the reasons you give.

True, but with a RF back, you could scan your film with a dedicated MF
film scanner, with spectacular results!
For 4x5", you'd have to send the film to drumscanner-equipped labs.
Very pricey, and control over scanning phase is taken away from you.
Plus, it's easy to self-process 120 rollfilm, while sheets are another
matter (for me at least).
Just my 2 cents. :-)

Fernando

[Fernando]

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 10:41:10 -0600, "jjs" > wrote:

>True, and besides with 4x5 you do get a precious few cm more of vertical
>coverage. I have a project on my bench to turn my 4x5 w/47mm SA to a
>rollfilm back, but am hesitating for exactly the reasons you give.

True, but with a RF back, you could scan your film with a dedicated MF
film scanner, with spectacular results!
For 4x5", you'd have to send the film to drumscanner-equipped labs.
Very pricey, and control over scanning phase is taken away from you.
Plus, it's easy to self-process 120 rollfilm, while sheets are another
matter (for me at least).
Just my 2 cents. :-)

Fernando

[jjs]

"Dan Fromm" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> Why skimp? But they don't. Its an American format. 2.25" x 3.25", to
> give a 2:3 aspect ratio on 120 film. It is what it is, not the lousy
> but easy to say metric approximation.

Something was lost in translation. What's wrong with 58x92mm? It's not
American? Sheesh.

[BC]

Lassi Hippel=E4inen wrote:

> Even good old Tessar is in a sense a
> retrofocus design,
> -- Lassi

That's certainly a stretch of any definition that I know of!
Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com

[BC]

Lassi Hippel=E4inen wrote:

> Even good old Tessar is in a sense a
> retrofocus design,
> -- Lassi

That's certainly a stretch of any definition that I know of!
Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com

[jjs]

"Fernando" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 10:41:10 -0600, "jjs" > wrote:
>
>>True, and besides with 4x5 you do get a precious few cm more of vertical
>>coverage. I have a project on my bench to turn my 4x5 w/47mm SA to a
>>rollfilm back, but am hesitating for exactly the reasons you give.
>
> True, but with a RF back, you could scan your film with a dedicated MF
> film scanner, with spectacular results!

Not me. I have an Epson 3200. It does 4x5, MF and 35mm - all equally BAD.

> For 4x5", you'd have to send the film to drumscanner-equipped labs.
> Very pricey, and control over scanning phase is taken away from you.
> Plus, it's easy to self-process 120 rollfilm, while sheets are another
> matter (for me at least).
> Just my 2 cents. :-)

Color is a problem for me, but I can do all B&W formats. No problem. Well,
at least during times when the darkroom isn't 40F, as it is now.

[jjs]

"Fernando" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 10:41:10 -0600, "jjs" > wrote:
>
>>True, and besides with 4x5 you do get a precious few cm more of vertical
>>coverage. I have a project on my bench to turn my 4x5 w/47mm SA to a
>>rollfilm back, but am hesitating for exactly the reasons you give.
>
> True, but with a RF back, you could scan your film with a dedicated MF
> film scanner, with spectacular results!

Not me. I have an Epson 3200. It does 4x5, MF and 35mm - all equally BAD.

> For 4x5", you'd have to send the film to drumscanner-equipped labs.
> Very pricey, and control over scanning phase is taken away from you.
> Plus, it's easy to self-process 120 rollfilm, while sheets are another
> matter (for me at least).
> Just my 2 cents. :-)

Color is a problem for me, but I can do all B&W formats. No problem. Well,
at least during times when the darkroom isn't 40F, as it is now.

[Lassi Hippeläinen]

Dan Fromm wrote:

> Why skimp? But they don't. Its an American format. 2.25" x 3.25", to
> give a 2:3 aspect ratio on 120 film. It is what it is, not the lousy
> but easy to say metric approximation.

2.25:3.25 isn't 2:3.

The size is usually 56x84mm, because 56mm is about the widest frame you can
safely fit on size 120 film, and 84mm = 1.5 x 56mm to get the 2:3 aspect
ratio. YMMV, there is no exact standard.

Calling it 6x9 is another story. 56x56mm square is usually called 6x6, so
calling the larger 2:3 frame "6x9" is sort of logical.

-- Lassi

[Lassi Hippeläinen]

Dan Fromm wrote:

> Why skimp? But they don't. Its an American format. 2.25" x 3.25", to
> give a 2:3 aspect ratio on 120 film. It is what it is, not the lousy
> but easy to say metric approximation.

2.25:3.25 isn't 2:3.

The size is usually 56x84mm, because 56mm is about the widest frame you can
safely fit on size 120 film, and 84mm = 1.5 x 56mm to get the 2:3 aspect
ratio. YMMV, there is no exact standard.

Calling it 6x9 is another story. 56x56mm square is usually called 6x6, so
calling the larger 2:3 frame "6x9" is sort of logical.

-- Lassi

[Fernando]

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 18:37:54 -0600, "jjs" > wrote:

>> True, but with a RF back, you could scan your film with a dedicated MF
>> film scanner, with spectacular results!
>
>Not me. I have an Epson 3200. It does 4x5, MF and 35mm - all equally BAD.

I'm not suprised: I have a 2450, and after having tried to pull decent
quality from it, I buyed a Polaroid SS120.

The difference is, well, astonishing:

http://gundam.srd.it/PhotoPages/epson_vs_polaroid.html

It's not difficult to find used SS120s at reasonable prices (from $500
to $800). :-)

Bye!

[Fernando]

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 18:37:54 -0600, "jjs" > wrote:

>> True, but with a RF back, you could scan your film with a dedicated MF
>> film scanner, with spectacular results!
>
>Not me. I have an Epson 3200. It does 4x5, MF and 35mm - all equally BAD.

I'm not suprised: I have a 2450, and after having tried to pull decent
quality from it, I buyed a Polaroid SS120.

The difference is, well, astonishing:

http://gundam.srd.it/PhotoPages/epson_vs_polaroid.html

It's not difficult to find used SS120s at reasonable prices (from $500
to $800). :-)

Bye!

[Bandicoot]

"jjs" > wrote in message
...
> "Bandicoot" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "jjs" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >> Ah, you have that lens! You are so close to ideal. Have you looked
> >> into the Silvestri, or a custom made 6x12?
> >
> > Yes, it's a very nice lens. So far I've only used it on RFBs up to 6x9,
> > but I do intend to use it on 6x12. That probably means buying a 6x12
> > back, but given what they seem to cost, I could shoot a lot of 4x5
> > sheets and just cut
>
> True, and besides with 4x5 you do get a precious few cm more of
> vertical coverage. I have a project on my bench to turn my 4x5
> w/47mm SA to a rollfilm back, but am hesitating for exactly the reasons
> you give.
>

And shooting on a 4x5 sheet and then cropping also gives more 'format'
options than limiting oneself to a 6x12 RFB. Square, for instance: the
largest square that the 38mm SA XL covers is a good bit bigger than 6x6,
after all... ;-)


Peter

[Bandicoot]

"jjs" > wrote in message
...
> "Bandicoot" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "jjs" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >> Ah, you have that lens! You are so close to ideal. Have you looked
> >> into the Silvestri, or a custom made 6x12?
> >
> > Yes, it's a very nice lens. So far I've only used it on RFBs up to 6x9,
> > but I do intend to use it on 6x12. That probably means buying a 6x12
> > back, but given what they seem to cost, I could shoot a lot of 4x5
> > sheets and just cut
>
> True, and besides with 4x5 you do get a precious few cm more of
> vertical coverage. I have a project on my bench to turn my 4x5
> w/47mm SA to a rollfilm back, but am hesitating for exactly the reasons
> you give.
>

And shooting on a 4x5 sheet and then cropping also gives more 'format'
options than limiting oneself to a 6x12 RFB. Square, for instance: the
largest square that the 38mm SA XL covers is a good bit bigger than 6x6,
after all... ;-)


Peter

[Dan Fromm]

Lassi Hippel=E4inen wrote:
> Dan Fromm wrote:
>
> > Why skimp? But they don't. Its an American format. 2.25" x
3=2E25", to
> > give a 2:3 aspect ratio on 120 film. It is what it is, not the
lousy
> > but easy to say metric approximation.
>
> 2.25:3.25 isn't 2:3.
>
> The size is usually 56x84mm, because 56mm is about the widest frame
you can
> safely fit on size 120 film, and 84mm =3D 1.5 x 56mm to get the 2:3
aspect
> ratio. YMMV, there is no exact standard.
>
> Calling it 6x9 is another story. 56x56mm square is usually called
6x6, so
> calling the larger 2:3 frame "6x9" is sort of logical.
>
> -- Lassi

Lassi, which nominal 6x9 roll holders have gates 84 mm wide?
6x6 is easier to say than 56x56. But 56 isn't 60.

Cheers,

Dan

[Dan Fromm]

Lassi Hippel=E4inen wrote:
> Dan Fromm wrote:
>
> > Why skimp? But they don't. Its an American format. 2.25" x
3=2E25", to
> > give a 2:3 aspect ratio on 120 film. It is what it is, not the
lousy
> > but easy to say metric approximation.
>
> 2.25:3.25 isn't 2:3.
>
> The size is usually 56x84mm, because 56mm is about the widest frame
you can
> safely fit on size 120 film, and 84mm =3D 1.5 x 56mm to get the 2:3
aspect
> ratio. YMMV, there is no exact standard.
>
> Calling it 6x9 is another story. 56x56mm square is usually called
6x6, so
> calling the larger 2:3 frame "6x9" is sort of logical.
>
> -- Lassi

Lassi, which nominal 6x9 roll holders have gates 84 mm wide?
6x6 is easier to say than 56x56. But 56 isn't 60.

Cheers,

Dan

[Dan Fromm]

John, find a medium that actually delivers and ask George Eastman.
2.25" x 2.25", 2.25" x 2.75", and 2.25" x 3.25" are formats for 120
film that EKCo introduced. I have no idea why Eastman chose to use
higher film for gates wider than 3.25", e.g., "postcard" formats,
instead of selling Kodaks that shot long relatively skinny negatives
and had lenses that were more or less normal for that format.

[Dan Fromm]

John, find a medium that actually delivers and ask George Eastman.
2.25" x 2.25", 2.25" x 2.75", and 2.25" x 3.25" are formats for 120
film that EKCo introduced. I have no idea why Eastman chose to use
higher film for gates wider than 3.25", e.g., "postcard" formats,
instead of selling Kodaks that shot long relatively skinny negatives
and had lenses that were more or less normal for that format.

[zeitgeist]

> >
> > Bandicoot wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > I have that Pentax 15mm lens too - and it is indeed wonderful. I
> > > also have that Ukrainian 30mm lens for MF - it isn't nearly as sharp
as
> > > the Pentax, and obviously the coating is nowhere near as good, but of
> > > course 6x6 vs. 35mm more than makes up for that.
> > >
> > > I wish I could get for 6x6 a rectilinear lens that was as good as
> > > that Pentax 15mm. My Schneider 38mm SA XL would be its
> > > equivalent on 6x9 if 6x9 was really 90mm long, but of course it isn't
> > > (and I can't afford a 35mm Grandagon...)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter
> >
> > Remember that for most roll holders and all sheet film holders nominal
> > 6x9's aspect ratio is 2:3, just like 35 mm. On a 57 mm x 82 mm
> > nominal 6x9 roll holder (they exist, I have three), your 38 SA XL is
> > equivalent to a hair over 16 mm on 24 x 36. Pretty damn close to
> > 15mm. Are you bragging or complaining?
>
> Well, neither, I hope!
>
> Yes, I do have a couple of 6x9 film holders that are 82mm long, and I
> suppose the 38mm used on those is indeed pretty close to the AoV of that
> 15mm lens used on 35mm. It's just that a couple of times I've wanted to
get
> something in when it just hasn't been quite wide enough, yet the 15mm was.
> Maybe just my bad luck to have run into more than one of the 'almost but
not
> quite' situations recently....
>

how are you judging what's in your view? MF slrs are notorious for only
showing 80-85% of the negative area. I'm not sure about the accuracy of
rangefinder windows or twinlens. even 35mm viewfinders crop except for the
top of the line ones.

[Jeff Sumner]

In article >,
Lassi Hippeläinen > wrote:

> Dr. Georg N.Nyman kirjoitti:
> <...>
> > Some companies and designers used related designs and made lenses like
> > the Topogon or Metrogon type - not that spectacular in design but fully
> > functional and used mostly for areal photography.
>
> Wasn't the Topogon another Zeiss lens? The Soviet Orion-15 (28mm/f:6)
> and Russar MR-2 (20mm/f:5.6) are Topogon designs. They have good
> reputation, if you can live with the small aperture. They even have
> aperture control, because the 4/4 design puts the optical centre in free
> air, not inside glass. But they aren't as short as the Hologon.
>
> Just speculating: Hologon could have started as a Topogon with the
> centre air gap and iris removed, and the rest squeezed together for as
> short focal length as possible? Since architectural photographers (the
> main market for Hologon) operate at or near sunny sixteen conditions,
> they don't need aperture control. Shutter speed range gives them enough
> exposure control.
>
> <...>
> > Today, yes there are lenses available with extremly short focal lengths
> > as example from Schneider-Kreuznach for professional digital photography
> > with FL down to 24mm and almost APO correction. You can see them online
> > at their website.
>
> The Cosina/Voigtländer lenses are pretty short, but they aren't Hologons.
>
> -- Lassi

The Mamaiya Universal has a 65mm Topogon clone. They were difficult to
make for the thinness of their internal elements. The other interesting
bit is that their aperture blades are part of their forumla. It's an f/4
design, limited to 6.3. There's someone on Photo.net that opened theirs
up to spectacularly strange results at f/4.

JD