Help needed at 75mm

[Brian Ellis]

Chamonix says the minimum bellows draw on your camera is 52mm.http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/45.html

So bellows draw won't prevent you from using a 75mm lens. However, without a bag bellows and/or a recessed lens board your ability to use movements may be restricted more than you like. I'd suggest buying the lens and seeing for yourself how much your movements are restricted. Then if you think you need a bag bellows or a recessed lens board you can get one.

The actual focal length of virtually all lenses varies slightly from the stated focal length. Manufacturers usually round numbers off. So any 75mm lens you buy might really be 74.6 or 75.8 or whatever. But I've never found or heard of that being a practical problem for anyone.

[Scotty230358]

I own and use Fujinon SWD 75mm with a maximum aperture of f5.6. Although my camera will accommodate this lens without using either a bag bellows or recessed board I have found it more convenient to use a bag bellows. It is a sharp contrasty lens although not as easy to focus as my longer lenses as the image on the ground glass is not as bright. However I do have the luxury of having a Boss screen fitted to my camera which makes things easier.

I have found, with this lens, that a centre filter is not essential. I am a monochrome worker so can't say if this would be the same for colour work.

[Rod.F]

Thanks Brian and Leigh for putting me right about bellows and recessed boards. I imagine that if I get a lens without a board included then I'll buy a recessed one as my first board. The Chamonix bellows seem to be ok from the specs, but I will consider bag bellows in the future if needs be. Ole, thanks for the multi coating info, I didn't realise that coating had been around for such a long time!

Tomorrow I am going to look at a Fujinon SWD 75mm f5.6 (this one to be exact), so I appreciate your replies Scotty, engl and Thom. It's priced at about $450 (buying cash in hand). What types of things should I be looking for when I look at the lens? Looking for scratches and damage to the glass, what about testing the shutter?

[Brian Ellis]

Thanks Brian and Leigh for putting me right about bellows and recessed boards. I imagine that if I get a lens without a board included then I'll buy a recessed one as my first board. The Chamonix bellows seem to be ok from the specs, but I will consider bag bellows in the future if needs be. Ole, thanks for the multi coating info, I didn't realise that coating had been around for such a long time!

Tomorrow I am going to look at a Fujinon SWD 75mm f5.6 (this one to be exact), so I appreciate your replies Scotty, engl and Thom. It's priced at about $450 (buying cash in hand). What types of things should I be looking for when I look at the lens? Looking for scratches and damage to the glass, what about testing the shutter?

There are lens experts here and I'm not one so I can't tell you a whole lot about what to look for with the lens except the obvious - scratches, coating rubbed off in places, dings, dents (especially on the outside ring where a filter would screw on), that sort of thing. Also look at the aperture blades and make sure they aren't bent or covered in grease or oil. Lenses can have other problems such as fungus and separation but I can't tell you what either looks like. For a non-lens expert like me and probably you, it's mostly a matter of inspecting the lens closely under a bright light and seeing if anything looks weird.

You can't really test the accuracy of shutter speeds without testing equipment. But you can put the shutter on B and T and make sure it isn't sticking as it closes. Do that three or four times in fairly quick succession, make sure it closes without sticking each time. Then check each speed from slowest to fastest and see if it sounds like the shutter is getting progressively faster as you move from one speed to the next. It can be hard to tell once you get into the faster speeds but at slower speeds you can tell. That won't confirm that the speeds are correct but at least you know they're moving in the right direction.

[Alan Gales]

I'm no lens expert either but I have seen fungus. It looks weblike when it starts. Google lens fungus for photo examples.

You can expect a few dust specks in the lens. Sometimes even brand new lenses have a speck or two. If you see a lot of dust or anything that you don't know what it is then pass.

I have never seen a lens with separation but if you google lens separation I'm sure you can find some example photos.

[Leigh]

People tend to emphasize the condition of the glass when discussing used lenses.
That's fine... I would never buy a lens that showed any glass problems whatsoever.

However, I put more faith in the appearance of the metal. That's what gets handled.

There should be absolutely no blemishes of any kind on any exterior surface.
A tiny nick or scratch could indicate that the lens has been dropped or otherwise mis-treated.

Simple wear, as opposed to damage, could indicate that the lens has been used in a commercial studio, which is not good.

In short, I expect a used lens to look like a new one in all respects. If not, I walk away.

All of my gear looks as good as the day it was unpacked. I've had some of these items for over 50 years.

- Leigh

[engl]

The only lens I have had that performed worse than expected was also the only one that was in perfect condition. My top performing lenses all have hints of being used, such as some minor scratches where the cable release has bumped into the shutter body. I'd never buy an abused lens though, such as one with a bent filter ring which implies the lens has bumped into something hard or been dropped.

I have mostly assumed that lenses that look like new look that way because they are optically poor and do not get used, or has been bought by some rich beginner and left in a camera bag. That guy would probably not have the sense or understanding to return it if was soft.

A lens which has been used in a studio is probably going to be optically great. It might have a more worn shutter, but getting shutter service is easier than finding optically good samples of lenses.

I see usage as a sign of approval from another active photographer, and unlike Leigh, consider signs of use and signs of abuse as different things.

[Leigh]

A lens which has been used in a studio is probably going to be optically great. It might have a more worn shutter, but getting shutter service is easier than finding optically good samples of lenses.
I see usage as a sign of approval from another active photographer, and unlike Leigh, consider signs of use and signs of abuse as different things.

Well, each of us holds an opinion, and they're all worth the price the reader pays.

My classic example of use is the Hasselblad 500-series cameras. Those that have been abused exhibit serious paint loss on the light baffle near the bottom, where the film magazine attaches. This is simply an example of users who don't care about their equipment. It only takes a fraction of a second to seat the magazine correctly.

Just an example (and admittedly not LF ).

= Leigh

[Rod.F]

Thanks all for the advice, I can see both side of the argument for lenses in perfect condition - not too sure which side to take though! Sadly I missed my chance with the Fuji lens, some early bird got in there whilst I was still at work. Had to make do with an evening, under rare crystal clear skies, shooting away with the old DSLR whilst the film camera loitered around back home. Will keep an eye out for online listings of any of the 4 named above lens over the next few weeks.

[Leigh]

I have mostly assumed that lenses that look like new look that way because they are optically poor and do not get used...

That is an absolutely indefensible assumption, presented merely to support your views.

I use my lenses quite regularly, and they're all in excellent condition.

But then I have 15 LF lenses, and I shoot other formats besides LF, so any particular lens may only get used a few times a month.

- Leigh