Aero Ektar:
I am trying to do a series of places in my town with the Aero Ektar and having a hard time but hey, it's a challenge.
More here.
Pentac (not Dallmeyer):
This one I am giving away, it's crap. I understand the quality varies from one to another. I must have gotten a shitty one.
In my experience, the commonly available affordable aerial lenses are no better (and sometimes even worse) than reasonably modern large format lenses, at least when used on regular view cameras. My guess is that we are already planarity limited on view cameras with the regular Plasmat or Biogon types. The higher MTF figures for aerial lenses may be fiction unless you use a rigid body and vacuum back - but under these conditions your average Symmar or SA should perform better as well.
Really usable by whom? By an amateur who tries to mate precise aerial lenses with a Graflex camera testing the monster on grass or fence poles? No wonder!Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
Just remember that those aerial lenses were very well usable for their purpose by those who used them in their non Graflex machines - to get a perspective on it out of your fence.
I agree. "Better" is perhaps just a fact that they have a bigger aperture, if that is now something someone is after...
GPS, substantive criticism -- suggestions about how to do things better, pointing out errors in arithmetic and reasoning, presenting results in conflict with mine -- is always welcome. Personal abuse is not.Really usable by whom? By an amateur who tries to mate precise aerial lenses with a Graflex camera testing the monster on grass or fence poles? No wonder!
Just remember that those aerial lenses were very well usable for their purpose by those who used them in their non Graflex machines - to get a perspective on it out of your fence.
You, m'friend, have stepped over that line.
Not only that, you missed two important points. The first is that not all aerial lenses are particularly good. This is supported by, e.g., resolution measurements on USAF lens data sheets and in the 1963 GOI catalog. The second is that I've said clearly that many lenses for aerial cameras are very good indeed but unusable by such as you because of mechanical and financial constraints.
And you misquoted me. I reported good results with my little wooden (and plastic, too) spookies from some of my aerial camera lenses, poor results from others. If you can't report accurately why should anyone take you seriously?
Stop sniping and start doing.
One thing you can do is buy some lenses made for aerial cameras and discover for yourself what using them requires. I suggest that you start with a 150/2.8 Elcan C138. They're not too expensive, not too hard to find, and pretty useless. Offer enough and I'll sell you mine.
If you want a real challenge, try to find a Perkin-Elmer 18"/4 Recon 640. Per USAF, its AWAR wide open with a Wratten 12 filter, 1000:1 target, and Kodak 3404 film is 201 lp/mm. It weighs only 18.6 pounds and has a fixed aperture. Oh, yeah, it covers 4x5.
You can also obtain catalogs/USAF data sheets and see the lenses' dimensions, including weight and back focus.
Get on it, and good luck.
I've got a 12" f5 Kodak Aerostigmat that I'm going to try out soon... It came mounted on a B&J board with a Packard shutter, and it required some modifications to make it work on my Calumet C1. Someone must have paid a lot of money to have it put together....the lens is mounted in a very nicely machined aluminum mount. That shutter just *barely* clears the opening of my C1 front standard, but it will work. I haven't been able to find much of any information on this lens (or examples) so I'm pretty curious to see how it work on 8x10. Also finally got a new bulb for the Packard, so all I really need is the time to try it out (and that's actually the hard part for me...)
I'll post some samples when I finally get a chance to shoot it...
toolbox, one would think that it should cover 8x10. But the USAF data sheets say that it is for 5"x5", also that it isn't very sharp wide open.
12"/5 Aerostigmats have been discussed a bit over the years. I don't recall strong favorable comments, doubt that this means much.
By all means try it out and tell us how it does for you.
Also, would you please count reflections and tell us whether it is a tessar type. If a tessar type, there should be four strong and no weak reflections from the front cell, two strong and one weak from the rear cell. The weak reflection may be hard to see. I ask because I recall discussions, with no clear conclusion reached, about whether the 12"/5 Aerostigmat is a tessar type.
Sorry Dan, I'm intelligent enough to know that trying aerial lenses on a Graflex camera is not a usable test of their "being good or not" or their "being usable or not". If that offences you personally, good luck to you.
GPS, you do scorn very well but are weak on substance.
And you don't read well. There's a large difference between being good enough to use and being mountable on a press, technical, or view camera.
Dan, it is silly endeavour to try to make from a Graflex camera an optical bench to test aerial lenses as good or usable if all you want is to know if they are mountable on a press, technical or view camera. Enough said.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks