PDA

View Full Version : The Imagon 200 5.8 for 4x5?



John Conway
12-Jan-2014, 11:42
I have been doing my research . Often listed as an 4x5 lens , it has an image circle of 150 , so technically speaking , it is 12 mm short right out of the gate . So a 150 mm circle at f22 on a soft focus lens , that will be used mostly at larger apertures , would be very limited at best on 4x5. But I would like to hear it from someone who has actually used it on 4x5 . At typical working distances doing portraiture , will the lens perform on 4x5 ?

Bob Salomon
12-Jan-2014, 13:25
No, the 250mm is the focal length for 45 if you want the desired halation the Imagon is known for at the proper apertures for portraiture with the Imagon.

The Imagon is not designed to be used with the aperture ring in the shutter. It is made to be used with the three disks that set the T stops on the lens and none of them will reach f22. The most commonly used disks for the Imagon used for portraits will be the largest opening disk or the middle one. These will result in T stops from 5.8 to 9.6. Also frequently used for maximum halation is no disk which is also 5.8.

For the best Imagon effect you need direct light (not umbrellas) and a lighting ration of about 5:1.

The Imagon design throws a peripheral image from the outside of the lens over the image created from the center of the lens. The amount of the halation is controlled by how much of the center of the lens is used (controlled by the size of the center hole of the disks) and how much of the peripheral image is used (controlled by how open or closed the holes surrounding the center hole are). The Imagon is quite sharp when used with the disk with the smallest center hole with all of its outer holes closed.

So no, it will not be satisfactory, if you want the effects the Imagon is known for, on 4x5.

If you want a copy of the Imagon instructions in hard copy mailed to you, if you are in the USA, let me know and I can copy the booklet that came with the lens.

cowanw
12-Jan-2014, 15:07
From http://harrysproshop.com/Imagon/imagon.html

In North America it is a common practise for photographers to photograph using 200mm Imagons on both medium format cameras and on 4x5 sheet film cameras. The main issue is not just coverage but usability.

Dr. Alfons Scholz of Rodenstock was a great Imagon scholar. In his book he explains his preference:

"The most favorable combination of camera and lens available is the Imagon 200 mm with the size 9 x 12cm. Full use of the field angle, unlimited aperture sequence, advantageous spatial depth, all these things are only possible with this combination. Anyone who does not want to use the Imagon for only one purpose, but who wants to make the most of his lens, will have to select the 200 mm lens and use it with a 9 x 12 camera."...
The 200mm has a covering power of 154mm and therefore can be used on 4x5 without movement, although it is primary adapted to Medium Format cameras. The 250mm has a field of 180mm and is thus a better choice for 4x5. The 300mm covers 5x7 (220mm field).

Amedeus
12-Jan-2014, 15:10
I use my Imagon 200 uniquely on MF digital ... not on 4x5 (which I also shoot)

CTwist
13-Jan-2014, 06:29
I use the 200mm on 5x4. The pics look fine by my liking.108199108200

John Conway
13-Jan-2014, 15:54
I use the 200mm on 5x4. The pics look fine by my liking.108199108200

That is very nice b&w portrait . Very much to my liking .

John Conway
13-Jan-2014, 16:18
I thought that 162 mm was the minimum required for 4x5 coverage without movements . But cowanw mentioned that the 200 imagon has a 154 circle and will work on 4x5 without moves. The image posted by CTwist (portrait) is really nice . I see a touch of vignetting that works for that image. I'm curious if that vignetting is from the lens or an additional touch by the photographer. So what is the absolute minimum image circle that will cover the diagonal of 4x5 sheet film?

Michael Alpert
13-Jan-2014, 16:22
The Imagon is not designed to be used with the aperture ring in the shutter. . .

I am sure that Bob's information is correct: The lens was made to be used with its discs. But calibrating the aperture ring is easy. You just need to use an inside caliper and simple arithmetic. I have an older lens in a compound shutter that I often use without discs. I've marked the ring from f5.6 to f11. The old shutter, which has maintained accurate speeds, has an iris that is nicely round at all apertures. So out-of-focus areas are smooth, without any of the highlight oddities that the discs sometimes create. I am mostly using the 200mm lens for tabletop photography, so the image circle is more than adequate.

John Conway
13-Jan-2014, 16:37
I definitely need to get a copy of the Imagon instructions from Mr Bob Salomon .

uphereinmytree
13-Jan-2014, 18:02
The 200mm imagon will DEFINITELY cover 4x5 and more! I use one all the time on 4x5 with movements and certainly at portrait distance on 5x7. The 'image circle' of 150mm is ridiculous. It is more likely that it has 150mm of corner to corner fine resolution. On 4x5 and wide open, the corners are a bit smeary with low resolution and I like it. It gets sharp all over as it's stopped down. No disrespect to the "imagon instructions', but in the real world it's great on 4x5. I never use the 'strainer' discs. They are for very controlled lighting situations. Also, I've never had to do any focal corrections with infrared film which I shoot 90% of the time.

included image is on 4x5 wide open, no disc, infrared film

CTwist
14-Jan-2014, 05:30
I agree: coverage seems fine. If there's only slight fall-off on the landscape shot, there's definitely none on the portrait. Lighting was aimed at the face plus I printed it to fit in to an oval frame - so I sped up the fall-off. (BTW, thanks for the kind comments)

Armin Seeholzer
14-Jan-2014, 11:58
I used my 250mm Imagon from time to time on the 8x10 if I wanted a little distorted look, non covering problems! Its not a crime to use a lens for something it was not calculated;--)))

Cheers Armin

Andrew Plume
14-Jan-2014, 13:00
The 200mm imagon will DEFINITELY cover 4x5 and more! I use one all the time on 4x5 with movements and certainly at portrait distance on 5x7. The 'image circle' of 150mm is ridiculous. It is more likely that it has 150mm of corner to corner fine resolution. On 4x5 and wide open, the corners are a bit smeary with low resolution and I like it. It gets sharp all over as it's stopped down. No disrespect to the "imagon instructions', but in the real world it's great on 4x5. I never use the 'strainer' discs. They are for very controlled lighting situations. Also, I've never had to do any focal corrections with infrared film which I shoot 90% of the time.

included image is on 4x5 wide open, no disc, infrared film


very nice work 'Mr Tree'

..........but.......exactly what is this an image of, pse?

regards

andrew

Andrew Plume
14-Jan-2014, 13:00
I used my 250mm Imagon from time to time on the 8x10 if I wanted a little distorted look, non covering problems! Its not a crime to use a lens for something it was not calculated;--)))

Cheers Armin

definitely agree

regards

andrew

Ed Vatza
20-Feb-2019, 08:46
I have an opportunity to pick up a beautiful copy of this lens at a very reasonable price. Here is my question. I am not a portrait photographer. I am more interested in creating soft focus landscapes, seascapes, cityscapes so I will be shooting closer to infinity than portrait distance. What are your thoughts on this lens for such landscape work? Thanks.

I guess I should add that the camera would be a Wista 45DX.

Ed

Bernice Loui
20-Feb-2019, 09:21
Imagons are typically used at H7.7 and not much smaller of an aperture. 200mm Imagon has been the standard 4x5 focal length for a very long time.


Bernice

cowanw
20-Feb-2019, 10:32
More important than distance to subject is what F stop you intend to use, which is to say how much depth of field do you require. If you plan on a smaller aperture than f8, then I would not expect much of a strainer effect nor much by way of aberrations.

Bob Salomon
20-Feb-2019, 13:56
Imagons are typically used at H7.7 and not much smaller of an aperture. 200mm Imagon has been the standard 4x5 focal length for a very long time.


Bernice

No, the 250 is the proper focal length for 45 as it provides the expected halation, with proper lighting.

Daniel Unkefer
20-Feb-2019, 15:08
Here I used the 250 Imagon with H7.7 disk. 6.5x9cm Plaubel Makiflex Foma 200 film Microdol-X

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5723/30717824571_cf9d978110_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/NNqT42)250 Imagon Makiflex Foma (https://flic.kr/p/NNqT42) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr


https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5513/30160624653_36f14ee418_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/MXc5VT)Makiflex Std 250 Imagon Foma 200 2 (https://flic.kr/p/MXc5VT) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

Ed Vatza
20-Feb-2019, 17:11
So if I am understanding correctly the 200 would give me some vignetting in the corners. My question would be how much? I think I could live with a little. Otherwise I assume I would get a similar soft focus effect but possibly not as pronounced as with the 250. Correct?

Ed

Jac@stafford.net
20-Feb-2019, 17:19
An opinion: We need an Imagon focal length long enough to encourage aberrations intended by Rodenstock for particular formats and in that regard a focal length longer than just enough to 'cover' a format is necessary.

Aside: Does anyone have an idea of why many Imagons are offered with missing sieves? Where do they go?

Bob Salomon
20-Feb-2019, 17:37
An opinion: We need an Imagon focal length long enough to encourage aberrations intended by Rodenstock for particular formats and in that regard a focal length longer than just enough to 'cover' a format is necessary.

Aside: Does anyone have an idea of why many Imagons are offered with missing sieves? Where do they go?

Once the user decided which gave the needed result most of the non used ones were probably misplaced and lost.

Ed Vatza
20-Feb-2019, 20:04
I just found a reference chart that specifies the image circle of the Imagon 200 5.8 is 150 at 11.5. So at 7.7 the image circle would be smaller. Correct? And if one uses a Copal 3 shutter and shoots at f/22 or f/45 for example, the image circle would be larger but i lose some of the softness. I'm new to this stuff and just trying to get everything straight in my old brain. I do understand that the 200 may not be the best alternative for me for landscapes but still trying to figure this all out..

Ed

cowanw
20-Feb-2019, 20:09
At f22 or F45 you will be at a smaller aperture than the centre hole on the discs and so not benefiting from having a disc at all. I.E. you lose, not some, but
all of the softness.

Bob Salomon
20-Feb-2019, 20:22
I just found a reference chart that specifies the image circle of the Imagon 200 5.8 is 150 at 11.5. So at 7.7 the image circle would be smaller. Correct? And if one uses a Copal 3 shutter and shoots at f/22 or f/45 for example, the image circle would be larger but i lose some of the softness. I'm new to this stuff and just trying to get everything straight in my old brain. I do understand that the 200 may not be the best alternative for me for landscapes but still trying to figure this all out..

Ed

An Imagon basically has 2 different focal lengths. The center is different from the edges. That is why the Imagon effect is controlled by the disks.

Each disk has a different size center hole and the small holes around the center hole can be opened and closed to control how much of the periphery light strikes the image plane.

If you use the diaphragm in the shutter you block the periphery rays and lose the effect of the Imagon. That is why the instructions state that the exposure is controlled by the disks and not by the aperture in the shutter which should be left wide open.

Itís your choice but if you want an Imagon then you probably want what an Imagon can do. That means disks only, no umbrellas or soft boxes and a 5:1 lighting ratio, or greater for proper halation!

Jac@stafford.net
20-Feb-2019, 20:25
if one uses a Copal 3 shutter and shoots at f/22 or f/45 for example

Rodenstock's using a shutter with an adjustable aperture control was a big mistake from day-one. Best forget it is even there.

Ed Vatza
21-Feb-2019, 07:40
Rodenstock's using a shutter with an adjustable aperture control was a big mistake from day-one. Best forget it is even there.

Question: Of course I am looking for the Imagon effect and that requires the disks. But without the disks, doesn't the lens work like any other 200mm lens? You can shoot wide open at f/5.8 or stop down as far as it goes. Right? You'd be looking for sharp results as opposed to soft results.

Ed

Louis Pacilla
21-Feb-2019, 08:11
Question: Of course I am looking for the Imagon effect and that requires the disks. But without the disks, doesn't the lens work like any other 200mm lens? You can shoot wide open at f/5.8 or stop down as far as it goes. Right? You'd be looking for sharp results as opposed to soft results.

Ed

Yes Ed it will. For some unknown or know reason a few around here just push the myth that the Imagon can only used w/ the disc. This has been disproven by many others. It works like any under corrected wide aperture achromatic pair that diffusion will sharpen up as you stop down.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bob Salomon
21-Feb-2019, 08:26
Question: Of course I am looking for the Imagon effect and that requires the disks. But without the disks, doesn't the lens work like any other 200mm lens? You can shoot wide open at f/5.8 or stop down as far as it goes. Right? You'd be looking for sharp results as opposed to soft results.

Ed
Without a disk it is a very soft image with maximum halation.

Stopping down the shutterís aperture totally changes the effect.

Jac@stafford.net
21-Feb-2019, 08:48
Question: Of course I am looking for the Imagon effect and that requires the disks. But without the disks, doesn't the lens work like any other 200mm lens? You can shoot wide open at f/5.8 or stop down as far as it goes. Right? You'd be looking for sharp results as opposed to soft results.

Without the discs, shot wide open it is definitely wonky (http://www.digoliardi.net/pampas-grass-2-web.jpg). Stopping down with no discs sharpens more as you progress but it's still not like a conventional lens.

Ed Vatza
21-Feb-2019, 09:24
I am learning a lot here in this discussion and appreciate you taking the time to respond to my questions. The good news here is that the Imagon 200 (not 250) that prompted the question is owned by a friend of mine. It comes with the three disks and ND filter. And he is willing share the work he has done with it as well as let me borrow it for a bit to see if it meets my needs. So no need to guess. I'll try it and if I like it, I'll buy it... the 200mm. If not... no hard, no foul.

Ed

Daniel Unkefer
21-Feb-2019, 17:10
I have a lot of Imagons (120, 150, 200, 250, 300, 360, 420).
You should be AOK with the 200mm on 4x5. But test it since you can :)
Of course as you move closer, the image circle increases.


I have ancient Rodenstock literature (some in German) that says it covers 4x5. The 250 covers 5x7 and the 300 8x10.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1475/24905205950_d40c93ba62_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/DWMG3A)2016-02-22 16.49.40 (https://flic.kr/p/DWMG3A) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

Bob Salomon
21-Feb-2019, 18:02
I have a lot of Imagons (120, 150, 200, 250, 300, 360, 420).
You should be AOK with the 200mm on 4x5. But test it since you can :)
Of course as you move closer, the image circle increases.


I have ancient Rodenstock literature (some in German) that says it covers 4x5. The 250 covers 5x7 and the 300 8x10.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1475/24905205950_d40c93ba62_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/DWMG3A)2016-02-22 16.49.40 (https://flic.kr/p/DWMG3A) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

Modern literature states 200 for 6x9, 250 for 45 and 300 for 57.

Ed Vatza
21-Feb-2019, 19:01
Modern literature states 200 for 6x9, 250 for 45 and 300 for 57.

Well one thing seems clear (as mud)... the 200 is right on line as far as use on a 4 x 5 is concerned. It seems clear that the 250 may be a better fit but it also seems clear that the 200 can work on a 4x5. And the deal with my friend would be for the 200. What I need to see is whether I get the soft focus effect with the 200 on 4 x 5? I am getting together with him tomorrow morning. Hopefully I'll have an answer then because this is driving me crazy!

Ed

Bob Salomon
21-Feb-2019, 19:25
Well one thing seems clear (as mud)... the 200 is right on line as far as use on a 4 x 5 is concerned. It seems clear that the 250 may be a better fit but it also seems clear that the 200 can work on a 4x5. And the deal with my friend would be for the 200. What I need to see is whether I get the soft focus effect with the 200 on 4 x 5? I am getting together with him tomorrow morning. Hopefully I'll have an answer then because this is driving me crazy!

Ed

Yes you will get soft focus and halation with the 200 on 45. However the amount of halation at say 7.7 with the 200 on 45 will not be what is normally expected with an Imagon. The 250 at 7.7, for example, will be what is expected.

And the 250 will fully cover 45 at infinity at any stop which the 200 will not.

All of this, as explained earlier, is with the lighting that the Imagon expects, 5:1 or greater lighting ratio and not with an umbrella or soft box.

mdarnton
22-Feb-2019, 09:12
I "expect" lenses to do what I want, not what the data sheet wants.

Worth noticing that only the Imagon and Fuji SF use discs at all. Every other SF lens on the planet has used the aperture as a means of selectively controlling the effect to the photographer's own preferences. If there's a problem here, it is that the Germans want to tell you how you should see and what you should do with your own.property. :)

Bob Salomon
22-Feb-2019, 10:50
I "expect" lenses to do what I want, not what the data sheet wants.

Worth noticing that only the Imagon and Fuji SF use discs at all. Every other SF lens on the planet has used the aperture as a means of selectively controlling the effect to the photographer's own preferences. If there's a problem here, it is that the Germans want to tell you how you should see and what you should do with your own.property. :)

Whatever floats your boat.

It should be pointed out that while both use disks they are used differently, one in front of the lens and one inside, their results are not the same.

Ed Vatza
22-Feb-2019, 12:26
So I tested the 200mm 5.8. Here are two scans - one at 5.8 with no disk and one at 7.7 with disk. The conditions were not ideal in a courtyard with overcast skies but it's what we had to work with. No movements. No vignetting. I like the ethereal quality of the first photo.

187983

187984

Bob Salomon
22-Feb-2019, 12:44
So I tested the 200mm 5.8. Here are two scans - one at 5.8 with no disk and one at 7.7 with disk. The conditions were not ideal in a courtyard with overcast skies but it's what we had to work with. No movements. No vignetting. I like the ethereal quality of the first photo.

187983

Unfortunately, since you had flat lighting you do not have the halation that the Imagon produces. You should have taken two more pictures.
1 with the 5.8 disk wide open and then another with all the periphery holes closed.
Then you would have had 2 shots at 5.8 and 2 at 7.7. Then you could see some of the choices the Imagon delivers. But do them with strong spectrals. Maybe with that string of lights on.

187984

Mark Sawyer
22-Feb-2019, 17:02
I tried the 250 Fujinon with the perforated aperture once, and found the Imagon much nicer.

There's good reason to follow Rodenstock's advice on the Imagon. There are also good reasons to break the rules. I've used my 300mm Imagon on 8x10 a number of times without issue. (That extrapolates to 150mm on 4x5.) I've used both disks and conventional aperture, and found I prefer a conventional aperture closed down slightly. I've never had a problem with vignetting, but the corners go quite soft. Bob will tell you I'm doing it all wrong, and he's right. But I like it that way.

Ed Vatza
22-Feb-2019, 18:31
One last question. Will a disk from the 250 fit on the 200? Both take the same filter size so I am wondering if the disks are the same? Or not?

I think the answer is no but I'm not positive. Can someone please verify.

Ed

Jac@stafford.net
22-Feb-2019, 18:55
I've used my 300mm Imagon on 8x10 a number of times without issue. (That extrapolates to 150mm on 4x5.)

I am not certain that is accurate for the Imagon, but willing to be shown wrong.

Bob Salomon
22-Feb-2019, 19:00
One last question. Will a disk from the 250 fit on the 200? Both take the same filter size so I am wondering if the disks are the same? Or not? Thanks.

Ed

The 200, 250 and 300 all have the same front mount and accept the same filters and hoods. However the disks are different as their center hole sizes are different for the same range of T stops.
So yes, a 250 disk will fit but the halation will be different then the proper disk.

The same is true with the 120 and 150 Imagons. Their disks will interchange with each other but they will also have different halation.

B.S.Kumar
22-Feb-2019, 19:08
I "expect" lenses to do what I want, not what the data sheet wants.

Worth noticing that only the Imagon and Fuji SF use discs at all. Every other SF lens on the planet has used the aperture as a means of selectively controlling the effect to the photographer's own preferences.

The Mamiya RB and RZ SF lenses are similar to the Fujinon SF lenses, with disks behind the front cell.

Kumar

Ed Vatza
22-Feb-2019, 19:10
The 200, 250 and 300 all have the same front mount and accept the same filters and hoods. However the disks are different as their center hole sizes are different for the same range of T stops.
So yes, a 250 disk will fit but the halation will be different then the proper disk.

The same is true with the 120 and 150 Imagons. Their disks will interchange with each other but they will also have different halation.

Interesting! And thank you. The 200 I am looking at has the 7.7/9.5 and 9.5/11.5 disks but is missing the 5.8/7.7 disk. I know where I can pick up a 5.8/7.7 disk from the 250. It could be interesting to see what I think of the effect.

Ed

cowanw
22-Feb-2019, 19:15
Not all 250 mm Imagon have the same size discs, some are 53mm and some are 68mm in diameter.

Bob Salomon
22-Feb-2019, 19:47
Interesting! And thank you. The 200 I am looking at has the 7.7/9.5 and 9.5/11.5 disks but is missing the 5.8/7.7 disk. I know where I can pick up a 5.8/7.7 disk from the 250. It could be interesting to see what I think of the effect.

Ed

Too bad you didnít ask a few years ago, we stocked spare disks but once the Imagon was discontinued we sold them all out.

Portrait and wedding photographers were the largest market for the Imagons after Monte Zucker, Al Gilbert, Tibor Horvath and some others began their various seminars and classes in the mid to late 60s. All of these guys used Hasselblad 250mm lens mounts with an adapter to mount the 200mm or special mounts and focus mounts for the 200 and virtually all of them used the 5.8 disk with the periphery holes closed to shoot at 7.7. So that is probably the hardest disk to find today.

Bob Salomon
22-Feb-2019, 19:50
Not all 250 mm Imagon have the same size discs, some are 53mm and some are 68mm in diameter.

All ones made since at least 1986 have the same mount. But the lens goes back decades before that, so changes could have easily occurred in all the time they were made.
I know since 86 as that was the year that we became the Rodenstock distributor in the USA.

B.S.Kumar
22-Feb-2019, 21:48
Some information:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?128210-WTB-Rodenstock-IMAGON-250mm-H-7-7-to-H-9-5-disk&p=1305012&viewfull=1#post1305012

Kumar

Mark Sawyer
22-Feb-2019, 23:27
I've used my 300mm Imagon on 8x10 a number of times without issue. (That extrapolates to 150mm on 4x5.) I've used both disks and conventional aperture, and found I prefer a conventional aperture closed down slightly. I've never had a problem with vignetting, but the corners go quite soft.

I am not certain that is accurate for the Imagon, but willing to be shown wrong.

Here are a couple of old ones done with the 300mm Imagon on 8x10, wide open. I believe a number of people here use the 300mm on 8x10. It probably illuminates 11x14. Most landscape lenses are so short-barreled they tend to throw a very wide cone of light.

Peter De Smidt
23-Feb-2019, 01:56
First-rate photos, Mark.

Ed Vatza
23-Feb-2019, 02:34
Too bad you didnít ask a few years ago, we stocked spare disks but once the Imagon was discontinued we sold them all out.

Portrait and wedding photographers were the largest market for the Imagons after Monte Zucker, Al Gilbert, Tibor Horvath and some others began their various seminars and classes in the mid to late 60s. All of these guys used Hasselblad 250mm lens mounts with an adapter to mount the 200mm or special mounts and focus mounts for the 200 and virtually all of them used the 5.8 disk with the periphery holes closed to shoot at 7.7. So that is probably the hardest disk to find today.

Yes too bad. Then I could have gotten some sleep. As it is I am now obsessed with finding a 5.8/7.7 disk for the 200mm 5.8 Imagon. As my wife can tell you, it's not a good thing when I get obsessed with something. Anyone have any suggestions where to look other than Ebay? And I already checked under my pillow as I lay awake.

Ed

Peter De Smidt
23-Feb-2019, 10:06
It's not hard to make your own disks.

Jac@stafford.net
23-Feb-2019, 14:45
It's not hard to make your own disks.

What we need is a filter-type holder and an original disc, a drill press and appropriate bits. (use the original to guide the press). Seems easy, but I am not going o make them. Labor intensive.

Peter De Smidt
23-Feb-2019, 14:53
The lens cap leather pops out easily on my version. It goes on just like the filters. I simply made some disks using stiff, opaque paper that fit into the lens cap ring. The lens is at my studio. I'll take pictures when I'm there next. I used a compass an an x-acto knife. It worked just fine. Jac's right that fancier versions could be made. My library has 3-d printers and a cnc machine. A few weeks ago, I 3-d printed a funnel for my espresso portafilter. It was very easy to do.

Jac@stafford.net
23-Feb-2019, 15:01
The lens cap leather pops out easily on my version. It goes on just like the filters. I simply made some disks using stiff, opaque paper that fit into the lens cap ring.

Elegant, Peter. Simple, the epitome of sophistication.

Daniel Unkefer
23-Feb-2019, 16:58
Yes, the lenscap (push out the leather circle) is it. Was going to suggest it, easy to make. Use the leather to make a pattern.

"200mm Imagon has been the standard 4x5 focal length for a very long time. -Bernice"
Yes that is what the old vintage literature states. Of course you would want to test that to confirm.
Then you will know.