Hello all,
Have had this for a while and it is great on my 8x10. I've used a W version in the past and prefer the rendering of this lens over it's W sibling. Wondering what your experiences and opinions are?
Thanks.
Have had this for a while and it is great on my 8x10. I've used a W version in the past and prefer the rendering of this lens over it's W sibling. Wondering what your experiences and opinions are?
Thanks.
Last edited by kleinbatavia; 16-Jun-2015 at 01:49. Reason: Added image.
I use the "W" which is very sharp. Can you post an example of the rendering of which you write?Originally Posted by kleinbatavia
Thanks.
I have the 420 version. My understanding is that they are single-coated tessars, and they were a budget-priced lens line, even though they come in big and expensive shutters. The 420 is a very good lens, and I expect the 300mm is as well. The "W" lenses will have greater coverage.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
I would sure like to see how the selective-focus rendering is, esp background blur etc. It's a tessar in a multi-bladed aperture, which sounds good. I toted a similar single-coated Zeiss tessar in barrel into the woods Saturday specifically for those qualities, which are generally absent from more modern lenses, even Nikkor M's, the pinnacle of tessar evolution. But I was doing long lens-cap exposures - always risky in our windy conditions. Before I try to find a Copal 3s shutter for it and pay for the mounting, I'd like to see what else is out there. Any these old tessars are going to be big and heavy, but I just use them for day hiking. The 300L seems like it would be a little restrictive in image circle on 8x10. The studio portrait photographers who loved these lenses generally didn't use tilts and swings to the degree we do in landscape. The 420 should have plenty of wiggle room. But it sure is hard to find any images taken with them other than portraits and nondescript background fabric. One need to see some tree branches or window edges to see if there is an annoying double-lined effect or not.
When I want hard-sharp super-duper whatever I use the Fuji 360 A or 450C. It's a distinctly different niche I'm trying to fill, and the 14" Kern dagor doesn't work
for that either. If you get my drift, I can go out and outright buy a Fuji L for the cost of a clean 3 shutter alone, but bucks is bucks.
Drew, I have some landscapes done with the 420 on 8x10, but I'm not sure if I scanned any of them. I'll take a look.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Thank you. Whenever, if its feasible. There had to be a reason certain people loved these lenses, and it wasn't about price.
Hi Drew, I use the L on 8x10, has some room, but I don't do anything that requires extensive movements with it. I hate scanning my 8x10's as they somehow never come out well (I use an epson flatbed), contrary to 4x5 which scans ok. Contacts from 8x10 are great though! Will see about getting some shots scanned when I find the time.
As for prices. The big copal 3 shutter probably sells for more than the lens if you pull them apart. That said, this is the case for a very large number of lenses these days. To me the combination of lens and shutter is great, but I really like the colours on the late version mine is in.
Just in case you are not aware.
I'm pretty sure the shutter your lens is in is a Copal 3s which has a different thread/opening then the Copal 3. If the lens in the photo in your 1st post is the actual lens you use then it's a Copal 3s. This is pretty easy to detect at a glance by the different colors on the operating levers/tabs.
And it's the old 3s shutters which had those wonderful multi-bladed apertures. But in my case, I've got nearly perfectly circular aperture blades in the lens barrel itself, so could just leave them wide open in any Copal. It would be nice, however, if spending the money to begin with, to have the L optics too, just as a comparison. Maybe I'll land a lucky horse trade one of these days. These are the kinds of nuances that one needs to view on the groundglass to appreciate. I apparently stumbled onto a keeper - good coverage and very sharp when I want it, but still with a lovely out-of-focus rendering more characteristic of older lenses.
But merely the style of aperture doesn't tell the whole story. The stars have to align in other respects too.
Older regular Copal 3 shutters (not just 3S) also have the rounder aperture. My 240mm Symmar-S is mounted in one. My rule of thumb is that if the aperture scale is linear, i.e. equal spacing between each full stop, it's the newer version. On the older ones the higher-numbered stops get progressively closer together.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks