Loupes

[ShannonG]

Yup Yup,time to upgrade my loupe situation. Has anyone tried either of these 2 loupes?They are both 10X,,im used to 8X but could use it a little closer up. On the first one,does the scale and cross hears really make a difference.I guess the focusing ring might be good sense i often change my reading glasses.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/40696-REG/Peak_1301983S_10x_Scale_Loupe.html
and here is the other one,both look like they have good glass
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/40688-REG/Peak_1301961_10x_Loupe.html
Anny informed opinions are welcome,
peace
s

[vinny]

10x, even 8x is too strong for most users.
I use a large 6x peak which is a cheap loupe but serves it's purpose.

[Leigh]

That 10x scale loupe has been around forever, under various brand names.

I have one in the carrying case with half a dozen different interchangeable graticules.

It's wonderful for measuring small features.

I wouldn't use it for GG on any of the view cameras. Too strong, and rather prone to aberrations.

- Leigh

[Sevo]

IIRC the formerly Horseman branded loupes later were marketed as/by Peak. At least in Horseman times they were considered the best value for money among loupes. And they always used to have a 7x one as well.

[William Whitaker]

10x is too strong for me. I have one of the Rodenstock 4x aspheric loupes and like it for critical focusing, although for most situations, a good pair of drug store reading glasses, as Fred Picker suggested many years ago, gives me much more freedom under the dark cloth. YMMV.

[Ari]

I keep a 5x and 12x; the 5x for general use, and the 12x is invaluable when focusing a wide angle lens.
From the two you listed, I'd spring for the expensive one with glass.

[Drew Wiley]

That Peak/Horseman 7x model is my favorite - reasonably compact but fairly tough if you drop it (I speak from experience!). It was also marketed at one time under
the Nikon label. I also have a 10X Emo - an expensive little jewel which might seem like overkill in magnification, but a very nice backup loupe simply due to its tiny size and excellent optics. It can with an accessory piece which turned it into a tiny telescope too. Came in handy last summer for tracing the right ledge across a
big granite dome into a remote basin.

[Daniel Stone]

I use one of these now:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=40617&is=REG&A=details&Q=

6X "Linen Tester". Folds up very thin, is durable, and IMO, sharp enough to focus my 90mm on my 5x7. The square corners are handy so you can stick it all the way into the corners of the g/g frame :)

-Dan

[Leigh]

Linen testers have been suggested/promoted by a number of people over the years.

The only drawback I see is that there's no sleeve to block ambient light.
I suppose you could rig up something from cardboard or plastic.

- Leigh

[Daniel Stone]

Leigh,
Under the dark cloth, I've never had any trouble focusing using the linen tester, or having issues with ambient light. I rough in focus using just my eyes, then do a critical focus with the loupe(linen tester). 95% of the time the film is sharp sharp sharp, just how I focused it :)

Others might have a different experience of course

-Dan

[Leigh]

Hi Dan,

You're right. I stand corrected.

I don't use a dark cloth, so that didn't occur to me.

I have a Maxwell screen that's bright enough I don't need a cloth, even outdoors. :D

- Leigh

[John Kasaian]

If Sophia Loren were a loupe, she'd be this loupe---
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=162584&is=REG&A=details&Q=

[Andy Eads]

This might sound whacky but I've been using the DW-2 6x magnifier from a Nikon. It weighs a ton but has huge coverage with no fringing or other artifacts clean to the edges. I picked mine up on the famous auction site for about $50. Cheapskate that I am, I also used a 2" projection lens from a super 8 projector. That worked nicely too.

[Drew Wiley]

I wonder if anyone has tried either of those long thin Chinese loupes adv on Fleabay?

[Kodachrome25]

and here is the other one,both look like they have good glass
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/40688-REG/Peak_1301961_10x_Loupe.html

That's the one I use, I wrapped it around a lanyard with black gaffer's tape which blacks out the clear skirt. Only once and awhile do I want for less mag but love the 10X for doing things like fudging the focus out for IR film and checking the corners. It's cheap and tiny, it works for me and the folding hood on my Chamonix 45N2 gets me in the ballpark for composing the shot.

I bought one of those Toyo loupes not long ago, found to be too big and did not offer much over my tiny 10X Peak so I returned it for a refund....

[Alan Gales]

If Sophia Loren were a loupe, she'd be this loupe---
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=162584&is=REG&A=details&Q=

John, the Silvestri is tilting. Sofia Loren is titillating. :)

[gevalia]

10x is too strong for me. I have one of the Rodenstock 4x aspheric loupes and like it for critical focusing, although for most situations, a good pair of drug store reading glasses, as Fred Picker suggested many years ago, gives me much more freedom under the dark cloth. YMMV.

+1

[Bob Salomon]

+1

So everyone is aware. The Rodenstock Aspheric 4x, 6x and 3x loupes are out of production and our stocks of them are totally gone. Some dealers may still have some.

[Leonard Evens]

10x, even 8x is too strong for most users.
I use a large 6x peak which is a cheap loupe but serves it's purpose.

I agree. If the loupe magnifies too strongly, you will end up focusing on surface features of your ground glass instead of on your image.

I use the near point-far point method, and my images are always in focus. Also, I can estimate pretty well how much I have to stop down.

I use a special pair of glasses my optometrist made for me which lets me get my eyes 6 inches from the gg. That corresponds for a 4 x 5 image to looking at an 8 x 10 image at 12 inches (or a larger image from proportionately further away). I choose a near point and far point which together delineate my desired depth of field, note the positions on the rail for each and set the standard halfway in between. The distance on the rail between those points, called the focus spread, can be used to determine the f-stop. I use the following rule of thumb: multiply the focus spread by 10 and divide the result by 2. I then stop down from half to a full stop beyond that. This rule works reasonably well if the aperture is not so small that diffraction becomes an issue. The LF Photo website suggests other approaches that work well.

You can often check dof by stopping down to the chosen f-stop and looking, but it is hard to see much of anything at f/22 and beyond.

I rarely need to use a loupe, but when I do, I don't use one which magnifies greater than 6-8 X. One thing to keep in mind about the use of a loupe is that any magnification greater than 2 x will reduce the apparent dof of what you see.

[tangyimail]

+1 :cool:


I agree. If the loupe magnifies too strongly, you will end up focusing on surface features of your ground glass instead of on your image.

I use the near point-far point method, and my images are always in focus. Also, I can estimate pretty well how much I have to stop down.

I use a special pair of glasses my optometrist made for me which lets me get my eyes 6 inches from the gg. That corresponds for a 4 x 5 image to looking at an 8 x 10 image at 12 inches (or a larger image from proportionately further away). I choose a near point and far point which together delineate my desired depth of field, note the positions on the rail for each and set the standard halfway in between. The distance on the rail between those points, called the focus spread, can be used to determine the f-stop. I use the following rule of thumb: multiply the focus spread by 10 and divide the result by 2. I then stop down from half to a full stop beyond that. This rule works reasonably well if the aperture is not so small that diffraction becomes an issue. The LF Photo website suggests other approaches that work well.

You can often check dof by stopping down to the chosen f-stop and looking, but it is hard to see much of anything at f/22 and beyond.

I rarely need to use a loupe, but when I do, I don't use one which magnifies greater than 6-8 X. One thing to keep in mind about the use of a loupe is that any magnification greater than 2 x will reduce the apparent dof of what you see.

[pasiasty]

I wonder if anyone has tried either of those long thin Chinese loupes adv on Fleabay?
I've just got mine, it's 6x. Better than a magnifying glass I used so far, coverage is quite narrow, but the image is clear and sharp.

[Lenny Eiger]

So everyone is aware. The Rodenstock Aspheric 4x, 6x and 3x loupes are out of production and our stocks of them are totally gone. Some dealers may still have some.

At Bob's suggestion, I got one of these. (He's never steered me wrong.) It is truly amazing, just what you'd expect from Rodenstock. Large, lots of light coming in, sharp as a tack, etc. It doesn't angle like the Silvestri, but what it lacks in wiggling into the corner, it makes up for with steller image quality.

I think this is one the Sophia Loren of loupes...

Lenny