need short mount/process lens for bellows.

[Linwood]

Hello,

Which of the bellows lenses / short mount lenses / process lenses, in
the 150mm to 200mm or so range, give the very sharpest images in the
center of the image at infinity and semi-closeup. I would be using it
on small format photography on a bellows which has some tilt/shift
movements, but on this camera it would not, of course, need a lot of
coverage. So center sharpness would be far far more important than
corner performance to me, especially at wider apertures.

Also a 39mm or 42mm rear mounting thread would be the most convenient,
and cost would make a difference.

Most bellows lenses are 100mm to 135mm focal length and 150 to
200mm-plus preferred.

I would be grateful for any information.

Thanks, Linwood

[Linwood]

In article >,
Linwood > wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Which of the bellows lenses / short mount lenses / process lenses, in
> the 150mm to 200mm or so range, give the very sharpest images in the
> center of the image at infinity and semi-closeup. I would be using it
> on small format photography on a bellows which has some tilt/shift
> movements, but on this camera it would not, of course, need a lot of
> coverage. So center sharpness would be far far more important than
> corner performance to me, especially at wider apertures.
>
> Also a 39mm or 42mm rear mounting thread would be the most convenient,
> and cost would make a difference.
>
> Most bellows lenses are 100mm to 135mm focal length and 150 to
> 200mm-plus preferred.
>
> I would be grateful for any information.
>
> Thanks, Linwood



I forgot to mention that a shutter is not necessary.

[Nick Zentena]

Linwood > wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Which of the bellows lenses / short mount lenses / process lenses, in
> the 150mm to 200mm or so range, give the very sharpest images in the
> center of the image at infinity and semi-closeup. I would be using it
> on small format photography on a bellows which has some tilt/shift
> movements, but on this camera it would not, of course, need a lot of
> coverage. So center sharpness would be far far more important than
> corner performance to me, especially at wider apertures.
>
> Also a 39mm or 42mm rear mounting thread would be the most convenient,
> and cost would make a difference.
>
> Most bellows lenses are 100mm to 135mm focal length and 150 to
> 200mm-plus preferred.

All I can say is I used an Agfa repro 105mm lens on an enlarger for
awhile. It wasn't exactly 39mm but it fit the lensboard just fine and the
retaining ring held it in place. Covers 4x5. F/5.6 wide open. I have no
real idea how well it works wide open since it always gets used at F/22 or
F/16 but it looks fine for focussing.

Nick

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

"Linwood" > wrote
>
> Which of the bellows lenses / short mount lenses / process lenses, in
> the 150mm to 200mm or so range, give the very sharpest images in the
> center of the image at infinity and semi-closeup. [narrow field]

Process:

Goerz Apo-Artar
Schnieder Repro-Claron (not "G")

In shutter:

One of the many Caltars, I have no idea which ("II-S" ?).

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

[RWatson767]

Linwood
> need short mount/process lens for bellows.

Perhaps consider the lenses used with the Polaroid MP3 or MP$ copy stands.
There were many from 17mm I think to 150MM. Both in shutters and no shutter.
Bob AZ

[Dan Fromm]

(RWatson767) wrote in message >...
> Linwood
> > need short mount/process lens for bellows.
>
> Perhaps consider the lenses used with the Polaroid MP3 or MP$ copy stands.
> There were many from 17mm I think to 150MM. Both in shutters and no shutter.
> Bob AZ

Bob, they're not much good at infinity.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 3/18/2004 4:12 AM Dan Fromm spake thus:

> (RWatson767) wrote in message >...
>> Linwood
>> > need short mount/process lens for bellows.
>>
>> Perhaps consider the lenses used with the Polaroid MP3 or MP$ copy stands.
>> There were many from 17mm I think to 150MM. Both in shutters and no shutter.
>> Bob AZ
>
> Bob, they're not much good at infinity.

Yes (and we're talking about the Japanese Tominon lenses here).


--
One person's "terrorist" is another person's "freedom fighter".

- an Uncomfortable Fact

[RWatson767]

Daniel
>Re: need short mount/process lens for bellows.

Bob, they're not much good at infinity.

But I believe the posters use was with bellows and a process lens. Not an
infinity situation.

Bob AZ

[Dan Fromm]

(RWatson767) wrote in message >...
> Daniel
> >Re: need short mount/process lens for bellows.
>
> Bob, they're not much good at infinity.
>
> But I believe the posters use was with bellows and a process lens. Not an
> infinity situation.
>
> Bob AZ

Bob, the original post asked "Which of the bellows lenses / short
mount lenses / process lenses, in the 150mm to 200mm or so range, give
the very sharpest images in the center of the image at infinity and
semi-closeup." Your reply suggesting the MP-4 Tominons missed his
desired focal length range by anywhere from a little (the 135/4.5) to
a lot (the 17/4). Your reply suggesting the question wasn't about
working at infinity was mistaken.

For what its worth, I've shot a 210/9 Konica Hexanon GRII on 35 mm
against a 200/4 MicroNikkor AIS. At f/9, f/11, f/16 and 1:2 (the
MicroNikkor's close focusing limit) and 40 feet the GRII did better.

Cheers,

Dan

[Linwood]

In article >,
(Dan Fromm) wrote:

> (RWatson767) wrote in message
> >...
> > Daniel
> > >Re: need short mount/process lens for bellows.
> >
> > Bob, they're not much good at infinity.
> >
> > But I believe the posters use was with bellows and a process lens. Not an
> > infinity situation.
> >
> > Bob AZ
>
> Bob, the original post asked "Which of the bellows lenses / short
> mount lenses / process lenses, in the 150mm to 200mm or so range, give
> the very sharpest images in the center of the image at infinity and
> semi-closeup." Your reply suggesting the MP-4 Tominons missed his
> desired focal length range by anywhere from a little (the 135/4.5) to
> a lot (the 17/4). Your reply suggesting the question wasn't about
> working at infinity was mistaken.
>
> For what its worth, I've shot a 210/9 Konica Hexanon GRII on 35 mm
> against a 200/4 MicroNikkor AIS. At f/9, f/11, f/16 and 1:2 (the
> MicroNikkor's close focusing limit) and 40 feet the GRII did better.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dan

Thanks Dan,

This is closest to the kind of info I was looking for; I will surely
consider it.

But I am thankful for all of the input.

Linwood

[Hendrik Hoeth]

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

> Schnieder Repro-Claron (not "G")

Why not "G"? I've got some G-Clarons from an old process camera and they
perform nice both at close-up and infinity. The only pain is that mine
don't have a shutter ...

Also have some Agfa repro lenses, but I didn't try them yet.

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

"Hendrik Hoeth" > wrote
> Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
> > Schneider Repro-Claron (not "G")
> Why not "G"? I've got some G-Clarons from an old process camera and they
> perform nice both at close-up and infinity. The only pain is that mine
> don't have a shutter ...

I was under the impression the Repro-Claron was a process lens as it
comes (well, I've only seen it) in a barrel and the G-Claron was a
general purpose lens that I have only seen in a shutter.

I stand corrected, though. All Clarons are process lenses designed for
use around 1:1. The "G", though, is often used for general purpose work.
Then there is the "WA-G"...

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

[Hendrik Hoeth]

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

> Then there is the "WA-G"...

I've got a WA G-Claron 270/11, but that's _really_ bulky. Never use it,
because the 240/9 is so much smaller.

[Dan Fromm]

"Nicholas O. Lindan" > wrote in message t>...
> "Hendrik Hoeth" > wrote
> > Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
> > > Schneider Repro-Claron (not "G")
> > Why not "G"? I've got some G-Clarons from an old process camera and they
> > perform nice both at close-up and infinity. The only pain is that mine
> > don't have a shutter ...
>
> I was under the impression the Repro-Claron was a process lens as it
> comes (well, I've only seen it) in a barrel and the G-Claron was a
> general purpose lens that I have only seen in a shutter.
>
> I stand corrected, though. All Clarons are process lenses designed for
> use around 1:1. The "G", though, is often used for general purpose work.
> Then there is the "WA-G"...

FWIW, according to Schneider the Repro Clarons were available in
barrel and in shutter. The cells of Repro Clarons in barrel can, they
say, be unscrewed and put directly in shutter. I have a #00 Compur
Rapid somewhere, now if only I could find a use for my 55/8 Repro
Claron.

Repro Clarons are dialyts, cover 46 degrees. G-Clarons are plasmats,
have much more coverage. The practical implication is that for
distant subjects one needs a somewhat longer Repro Claron than
G-Claron to cover a format. Since the original poster wanted to use
his proposed new 200 mm +/- lens on small format, either will do for
him.

Cheers,

Dan

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

"Dan Fromm" > wrote

> if only I could find a use for my 55/8 Repro
> Claron.

Original use was microfilming? Mini-Lab? Itty-bitty Xerox machine?

Should work well in a slide duplicator.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

[Dan Fromm]

"Nicholas O. Lindan" > wrote in message et>...
> "Dan Fromm" > wrote
>
> > if only I could find a use for my 55/8 Repro
> > Claron.
>
> Original use was microfilming? Mini-Lab? Itty-bitty Xerox machine?
>
> Should work well in a slide duplicator.

I've seen them in slide duplicators. Got mine when I was on a macro
lens binge. Cheap thrills and all that, but now that I've tested I
know that a reversed 55/2.8 MicroNikkor does better above 1:1.
Another instance of too soon old, too late smart.

Cheers,

Dan