Konica GRII series coverage

[Dan Fromm]

Its likely to be good as a macro lens, Mark. I've shot my 210/9 GRII against my 200/4 MicroNikkor AIS at f/11, f/16, f/22 at 1:2, the MicroNikkor's highest magnification on its own mount. I don't rate the 200/4 manual focus MicroNikkor as a great lens, but in any case the 210 GRII beat it handily. Sharper, crisper, ... Got the same result at ~ 35 feet.

Some LF lenses really sharper than some lenses for 35 mm.

Cheers,

Dan

[Mark Sawyer]

Thanks for the words of encouragement, Dan. I just developed the negative and it looks quite nice, except for a little dust spot on the film. You'd think by now manufacturers would have come up with a lens that keeps dust out of the filmholder...

I'll see how it prints tomorrow...

[landarc]

Mark I am sorry that the lens does not cover. You can send it back to me and I'll send you the one I have been using that does cover. One thing I had to do with mine is mount the lens up via the large iris ring. It's not a problem as the lens is very small and light. I put a recess on the lens board and mounted the lens from the iris ring after tapping a few holes in it. This allows the lens to sit further back in the camera, like a recessed lens board. When I first mounted the lens using the flange the bellows on my camera clipped the image. Anyway if you want you can send me back the lens you bought, and I'll send you the one I have used.

I don't like to be the perpretator of false coverages as this is a real problem on ebay. There are optical and mathematical reasons Schneider and other manufacturers quote specific image cirlcles. When you go beyond them you may get image but you are in a zone where abberations can be assured. Thats why they state the coverage in the first place! Beyond what they state the image is NOT corrected. Now for those of us who do contact prints on large format the abberations may not be noticable in a contact print. All that being said if you are absolutly critical about image quality you would never use a process lens at infinity. Symmetrical lenses such as process lenses do correct for 3 abberations by being symmetrical. BUT when you focus on distant objects these abberations are NOT corrected. This is why modern lenses are not symmetrical. Most modern lenses are almost symmetrical but not quite. Anyhow I would never use a process lens at infinity for commercial work and you shouldn't either. The konica 150mm lens that I have used produces satisfactory images for contact printing on 8x10 for bw work.

[Mark Sawyer]

Landarc- we can switch lenses or I don't mind hanging onto the one I recieved as a macro lens. I'm pretty happy with the initial negative and print I got out of it using it at 1:1, so I don't regret buying it and feel it was still a good deal. I was hoping it would also make a decent field lens, and I could still use it as one and just trim down the prints a little. But I'm probably better off spending way too much on something with enough coverage to allow some movements.

If I ever win the lottery, I'm buying a whole set of XL lenses just to crack walnuts with...

[landarc]

Mark, sounds good to me. I'll just keep the one I have I guess. I will be getting another one soon and I'll compare that to the others. Its also possible that my shot was a hair closer than infinity focus. I have only done the one image as I don't need a 150 on 8x10 very often. It is probably asking too much for a very inexpensive process lens like this to produce commercial qulaity negs. Anyhow the lens is decent, inexpensive and produces a good image considering what it is. I think the corners are good but certainly you'll get better results w/ the huge sa and grandagons. It is quite disconcerting that a modern or recent lens like this has such differing coverages. The manufactuing must have been very poor. Or the lens design changed a bit over time. Owell the search for good covering 150mm for 8x10 at a reasonable price continues! You may notice that the 165 SA prices continue to drop on the web. They get less expensive all the time.....

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Owell the search for good covering 150mm for 8x10 at a reasonable price continues!

Have you considered a 6¼" Wollensak Ext. WA? While it might not be as cheap as a barrel mount process lens, it comes mounted in a shutter and has enough coverage to allow some movements on 8x10. Prices are generally in the $250 - $350 range, depending on condition and bidder enthusiasm.

For more info (and some pics), see this thread:

Age of Wollensak 6¼" (159mm) Extreme W.A.

Kerry

[Mark Sawyer]

Hey, Kerry! I've got an older (serial #12252) Wollensak 6 1/4 " f12.5 EWA that I really like a lot for contact printing, which is what I do 98% of the time. But I've noticed when I enlarge the print to even 11x14", it starts to fall apart. I've been watching for a later one, hoping it might be sharper than mine, (wouldn't mind the coatings either). My fault for getting that stupid 8x10 enlarger...

But I would consider other lenses too. There doesn't seem to be a lot of choice in that focal length range (150-165mm.) The GRII "almost" covers w/ no movements, the 165mm Angulon covers w/ very slight movements and softening at the corners, the 150mm Nikkor SW costs a fortune...

Other suggestions are welcome, as are comments on how sharp other Wollensak 6 1/4's are.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Mark,

There aren't a lot of options for affordable 8x10 lenses this wide. A newer (as in post-WWII) coated Wolly is probably your best bet.

The 165mm Schneider Angulon will also hit the corners of 8x10 when stopped down. These are plentiful and affordable on eBay. Look for a Linhof selected model, or a late sample from the mid to late 1960s. Other than a special production run that was made in 1978, most 165mm Angulons come in No. 2 Compur shutter and take 58mm filters (the 1978 batch fits in a Compur/Copal No. 3 and takes 67mm filters).

The 6½" WA Dagor will also cover 8x10 stopped down, but cult status has driven the prices through the roof.

The 158mm f6.5 Cooke Series VIIb, would be an excellent choice, if you could find one. Very small and compact with 100 degree coverage. Originally supplied in a barrel, but I have seen one or two remounted into a No. 1 Compur. Rumor is that Cooke may introduce an updated version of this lens. I, for one, hope they do. While a new lens won't be nearly as affordable as these 40 - 50 year old compact wide angles, it will have the advantages of multicoating and a modern shutter.

Personally, I am shooting 4x10. So, I can get by with a bit less coverage. It sounds like the 150mm GRII would work for 4x10. Currently I have several little 150s that I plan to test to chose the best one for 4x10. I've been shooting with a 150mm f9 Graphic-Kowa that covers 4x10, but probably not 8x10 (image circle is usually listed as 290mm - seems about right based on my use). I also have a 150mm f6.8 APO Kyvytar and 150mm f9 Computar that reportedly came from the same factory as the Graphic-Kowa. And, even though they appear to be identical, in some focal lengths, the Computar is reported to cover more than the Graphic-Kowa. If that's true, the 150mm Computar just might cover 8x10 (but I remain skeptical until I test it myself).

Kerry

[landarc]

Mark I have figured out the coverage issue with the Konica 150mm lens. The front element is threaded info into the lens barrel and simply held there with adhesive. I removed one of mine to see if the lens could go into shutter. When I realized it could not easily go into shutter I realized the element group threaded much further into the barrel then it did origianlly. So by moving the lens groups closer together you increase the lenses coverage. I do not recommend you do this as the lens is probably factory set and optimized where its at right now. Anyway the lens coverage can be increased if you screw the front grouping further down the barrel. This would account for the many different lens coverages given from different people. So we are all correct. The lens coverages are all different due to the poor lens construction and the fact that the inner air space is probably different with each one of these lenses. I will have to shoot some more film with the lens groups closer together and I would imagine this might cause some quality problems. Then again it may not considering the lens is made for 1:1 and we are using it at infinity or there abouts . I will have to consult the phd lens designers on this one, to get their opinion of this and the effects it may have on image quality at infinity focus. It may be just fine to tighten up the lens spacing considering were are already using the lens out of its normal optimized range.

[Lachlan 717]

I know that this is an old thread, and seems to be directed to the 150mm, but can anyone let me know if the Konica Hexanon GRII 260mm covers 7x17"?

Thanks,