Prime slr lens on a crown graphic??!

[petrochemist]

I looked. There's nothing occluding the exit pupil. That's what stops do. Ain't none that matters.

You looked and saw that only the center portion of the image got through the lens.

Interesting. Why, pray, do telephoto lenses invariably have smaller circles of good definition than lenses of normal construction (neither telephoto nor wide angle) of the same focal length?

I would expect that's because normal construction lenses are much easier to correct for all the various aberrations. Top quality modern lenses (out of my price range, but perhaps including some of the OPs Nikon lenses) use aspherical elements, and exotic glass such as 'extra low dispersion' to improve matters. I'm not so sure your 'invariably' applies with them.

[Dan Fromm]

You looked and saw that only the center portion of the image got through the lens.

What is the exit pupil?



[/QUOTE]I would expect that's because normal construction lenses are much easier to correct for all the various aberrations. Top quality modern lenses (out of my price range, but perhaps including some of the OPs Nikon lenses) use aspherical elements, and exotic glass such as 'extra low dispersion' to improve matters. I'm not so sure your 'invariably' applies with them.[/QUOTE]

What determines a lens' coverage?

[snay1345]

Ben I don't think you are understanding. First of all your prime (i am assuming you have either a 50 or 85) lens would be a very wide angle on a 4x5 even if it were to work. Second if you were able get this thing mounted and focused on your ground glass the image circle would not cover the whole sheet of film. Large format lenses are designed to cover large format sheets of film. 35mm lenses are not since their is no need to, as all 35mm lenses are only mounted for one brand of camera and are not designed to be thrown on a lensboard and used with a large format. And if you were able to get the lens far enough away from the ground glass to make the image circle large enough to cover a sheet of 4x5 there would be no way in hell the lens would ever focus.

[Wally]

OK, let's close this thread now. The OP's question at the top, and snay1345's succinct answer at the bottom (but for mine :^).

In-between there's lots of info on macro and micro photography intermingled with lots of 'you, sir, are an idiot - here's how it is', and 'go read _my_ books - yours are crap', and on and on. You (who are acting like jerks to one another) may think you're conveying the idea that you really are smarter than that other guy, but you come off sounding like a real dick.

[E. von Hoegh]

OK, let's close this thread now. The OP's question at the top, and snay1345's succinct answer at the bottom (but for mine :^).

In-between there's lots of info on macro and micro photography intermingled with lots of 'you, sir, are an idiot - here's how it is', and 'go read _my_ books - yours are crap', and on and on. You (who are acting like jerks to one another) may think you're conveying the idea that you really are smarter than that other guy, but you come off sounding like a real dick.

Actually, snay is incorrect. The lens would focus at about twice lifesize. (winking smiley)

[denverjims]

During the early middle ages, church scholars would argue for years and write volumes on the incredibly important question of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Sometimes the arguments would end in physical blows between 'experts' who knew, beyond a doubt, they had the correct answer. What brought that to mind this momemt? Hmmmm...

[Jim Jones]

Snay is correct as far as mounting the lens normally, but several replies on this thread point out that most lenses from smaller cameras can be reverse mounted (with the lens mount pointing away from the film) for macro photography. This is usually easy to do via the filter threads on the lens. It works. Some of us have done it.

[Wally]

That's the way I used my olympus 50 1.4 on my Pentax 67 bellows: a 67mm filter-to-Pentax67 adapter, and a 49-67 step-up ring. I used a rubber band to pull the diaphragm lever that stuck out the back end of the lens so it'd stay stopped down once I was done rough focusing wide open.

I hope that even if he doesn't respond again to all the replies his original post generated (directly or indirectly), he at least comes back after reading our home page's docs on LF lenses, and has his light bulb moment.

[David Casillas]

During the early middle ages, church scholars would argue for years and write volumes on the incredibly important question of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Sometimes the arguments would end in physical blows between 'experts' who knew, beyond a doubt, they had the correct answer. What brought that to mind this momemt? Hmmmm...

Should´nt the forum be free of any reiligious comments.
I dont know if this statment is an american joke but i quit offensive to say that for Catholics.
If you say early middle age scholars, you ara talking about Saint Agustin, and Saint Jerome. I dont know what kind of person would believe these guys wold discuss about that.

I would like to sugest to remove that reply.

[Ole Tjugen]

Was that a religious comment???

I read it as a comment that there are many cases of scholars seriously debating (at length) matters which at a later time seem silly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_man...ad_of_a_pin%3F

Not that silliness among scholars was limited to medieval times:

Feyerabend's Theatrum Diabolorum, "which," as the title says, "is a useful and sensible book," contains a great number of essays written by such prominent little authorities as Jodocus Hockerus Osnaburgensis, Hermannus Hamelmannus, Andreas Musculus, Andreas Fabricius Chemnicensis, Ludovicus Milichius, and others. The Reverend Hocker explains in forty-eight chapters almost all possible problems connected with devils whose number in Chapter VIII. is, according to Borrhaus, calculated to be not less than 2,665,866,746,664.

There were undoubtedly other scholars at the time, besides the saints Augustine and Jerome.