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

[Dr. Slick]

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

[Dean Van Praotl]

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.
>

[Stacey]

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

[David Nebenzahl]

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

[Dr. Slick]

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

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


Slick

[Dan Fromm]

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

[David Nebenzahl]

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

[Stacey]

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

[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

[David Nebenzahl]

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

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

"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.

If you are doing B&W then shooting through a red filter will remove
all the color fringing. A deep green or deep blue filter will also
work, but they tend to be 'double humped' and have an extra pass-band
in the deep red > ~700nm where some films still have sensitivity.
FWIW T-Max films drop off the face of the earth at 650nm.

http://www.geocities.com/thombell/filters/wf47.gif
http://www.geocities.com/thombell/filters/wf61.gif

--
Nick Lindan

[Dr. Slick]

David Nebenzahl > wrote in message >...
> 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.


Ok, so this newbie would presume that there is not an "all-in-one"
4x5 lens for close-up work AND landscape work, or is there? As it
seems you can do close-ups and landscape no problem with most 35mm
lens i have used.


Slick

[Nick Zentena]

Dr. Slick > wrote:

>
>
> Ok, so this newbie would presume that there is not an "all-in-one"
> 4x5 lens for close-up work AND landscape work, or is there? As it
> seems you can do close-ups and landscape no problem with most 35mm
> lens i have used.


They sell macro lenses for 35mm. You can use any lens [35mm or 4x5] any
way you like. It comes down to what you're willing to settle for.

The g-claron lenses might provide what you're looking for.

http://www.schneideroptics.com/photography/large_format_lenses/g-claron/

Nick

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

"Dr. Slick" > wrote

> Ok, so this newbie would presume that there is not an "all-in-one"
> 4x5 lens for close-up work AND landscape work, or is there?

As pointed out before, a Tessar formula lens will, in general,
have a flat field suitable for copy work and will be sharp
at close distances.

It was, in the old days, common to use camera Tessar lenses on
enlargers; the Leitz Valoy being originally designed to use a Leitz
Elmar lens.

Get a 152mm Kodak Ektar. Cheap.

For macro work you can reverse any old GP lens. For strictly copy
work an enlarger lens will work just grand.

If your budget will stretch to it, a 4-element copy lens -- such as
an Artar -- will work superbly at normal distances.

Stay away from 4x5 Xenars (personal experience, YMMV), anything
from Wollensack/Graflex and anything modified from another
application (i.e. Tominon Oscilloscope lenses, Ysar Polaroid
lenses ...) - there are exceptions to this rule, but why bother
worrying about them.

--
Nick Lindan

[Stacey]

Dr. Slick wrote:


>
>
> Ok, so this newbie would presume that there is not an "all-in-one"
> 4x5 lens for close-up work AND landscape work, or is there? As it
> seems you can do close-ups and landscape no problem with most 35mm
> lens i have used.
>


The problem you ran into is a poor lens. That 135mm xenar you have is
useless for closeup work or landscapes! A modern 135mm plasmat lens would
do both with acceptable quality as would a -good- tessar design. The xenar
you bought was just a dog of a lens. Just like there are macro specific
35mm lenses, the same applies to LF.
--

Stacey

[Tom Monego]

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

Ysarons were off the MP-3, went to a low end lens maker for the Tominons.
Anybody who had the opportunity put Schnieder or Rodenstock enlarging lenses on
their MP-4's

Tom