Show me what you can do with LF! (That you can't with smaller formats.)

These EDIF P7 lenses were barely into production when they were discontinued.
The typical price new for the 300 was around $1200, and I've seen used ones selling
between a grand and $1500. What drove up the price to cult status is not only their
current scarcity but the superior quality of their optics for astro nite photographers.
The 400 EDIF has always been quite rare and expensive, and is downright huge.
These lenses are white, not black. Past my budget, since a late immaculate black
300 can be acquired for about $300, and is virtually equal for black and white film use. It's nice for windy and rainy conditions, when I just don't want to dry off one of my view cameras, or want to pot-shot a distant scene quickly from the highway. Not
very practical for backpacking, however.

Steve - sorry, but there's nothing toxic about Elmer's glue. That's why they give it to
kids in Kindergarten, who eat it along with their own boogers. Right now I'm about to repair a pack with some Barge cement. Merely sniffing that stuff will put you into
the flying club. Will work on your 11X14 bellows too, just in case you need an excuse to tote it along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tgtaylor

Consider the Pentax 400mm f4 ED(IF) with 1.4 tele extender or the Pentax 600mm f4:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...es/600mm.shtml

Thomas

---

Bring your checkbook.

Rick "mine is inadequate" Denney

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tgtaylor

Drew,

$4K for a used 400mm EDIF sounds a little steep. One sold last year for $1600 that was in mint condition and, although I haven't been in the market for one, I have saw them selling in the $1600 to $2000 range on ebay. I own both the 300mm and 400mm non ED versions purchasing the 400mm as a "demo" from Adorama for $795. Except for the box, which looked like it had been opened several hundred times, the lens was in absolutely pristine condition: not even one speck of dust in the lens or even the slightest mark on it anywhere. Although it is a heavy lens, ~8 lbs, a Gitzo G1348 and Arca Swiss Z1-sp ball head will hold the lens and camera off-axis without migration or vibration when using slow shutter speeds. Recently I bought a Gitzo G1500 tripod and G1570M head off the forum which will provide an even more sturdy support should that be required. Here's a link to an astronomical image of the Horsehead Nebula taken with the 400mm non-EDIF: http://www.narrowbandimaging.com/ima...a_xga_7hrs.jpg

Although the non-EDIF version is super sharp - sharper, IMO, than the 300mm (but maybe my 300mm needs a little collimation) -, I'm sure the new version is even better and certainly it eliminates the chromatic aberration discussed in the review.

Steve,

Although I have yet to do Elmer’s Glue, I do recall sitting in my high chair in the kitchen while mom was at the stove cooking. Apparently I was cutting-up and she handed me an un-opened pack of Pall Malls to play with to get me to quieten down. I opened the pack and ate the cigarettes! I don't recall eating them only mom standing at the stove with her back to me and the red color of the pack. Next thing I remember she's in my face all concerned and being pick-up and brought to the hospital and she's telling them that I ate the cigarettes. She told me later that I had turned yellow in color. I must have been under 2.

Thomas

---

That reminds me of the time my brother and I threw the family cat out the up-stairs window ... Mom gave us time out with a pack of lucky strikes and a spot of 151 rum in our sippy cups to calm us down.. Heck we had it made all we needed then was my good lookin blonde cousin to come babysit us :D we called her Helga

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew Wiley

Steve - sorry, but there's nothing toxic about Elmer's glue. That's why they give it to
kids in Kindergarten, who eat it along with their own boogers. Right now I'm about to repair a pack with some Barge cement. Merely sniffing that stuff will put you into
the flying club. Will work on your 11X14 bellows too, just in case you need an excuse to tote it along.

---

Thank you Drew I will keep that in mind :)

Hey everybody, OP here.
Wow, that was one heck of a response to my question! Thanks guys.
I really hadn't expected it to go the way it did - I thought for sure it was going to be all about the images, because we all like to show off, and that it was going to mostly be "here's some shallow depth of field, here's some wide-angle tilt, here's some soft focus stuff, have a nice day." I didn't expect 174 responses or the technical wrangling - I'm not opposed to technical wangling, I just didn't expect it. This is great.

I learned a huge amount, and I have a lot to think about.

Thanks again,
Will

It's funny, I saw the original post and have watched the thread evolve as well. It's not what I anticipated either, but I've learned a lot myself (and I've been messing with 4x5 for a number of years now).

So here's what I want and get out of LF... the ability to concentrate on just a very few pictures. With roll film or digital cameras I can produce way more photos than I can reasonably deal with. Heck, Edward Weston took fewer than 500 pictures in his lifetime. I see people talking about shooting 10's of thousands of digital images. Well I can only reasonably think about or properly process a few photographs a month. Hopefully as I return to LF I will get something like Ansel Adams' goal of 12 good photographs a year (yeah its true, mine will be a lot less good).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ashlee52

. . . Edward Weston took fewer than 500 pictures in his lifetime. . . .

---

? I thought he took well over a thousand in the two years of the Guggenheim fellowship. He also wrote of shooting a dozen or more sheets in some sessions. The 500 probably must not include the glass plates cleaned off for window panes.

OK, just for kicks I'll post an image that I believe would be EXTREMELY difficult to execute without a large format camera.
And yes it is rather strange and is absolutely not intended to be an argument for using the format. That would be entirely crazy.
8x10 Sinar P, 240mm Fujinon-A, Ektar, f32 1 second